Santiago Court Accepts Charges Against Former Minister Ángela Vivanco: «Evidence Suggests She Received Money for Favoring CBM’s Interests»

Original article: Corte de Santiago acoge querella contra exministra Vivanco: «Es plausible inferir que recibió dinero para sí y su conviviente por favorecer intereses de CBM»

The Santiago Court of Appeals has accepted the chapter-based charges brought by the Public Ministry against former Supreme Court Minister Ángela Vivanco, who is under investigation for alleged irregularities related to cases processed in the highest court, including the notorious «Belarus plot.»

In a unanimous ruling (role 5.831-2025), the First Chamber of the appellate court – comprised of judges Fernando Carreño, Guillermo de la Barra, and Fernando Valderrama – determined that all the necessary criteria for proceeding with the preliminary investigation against the former magistrate presented by the Public Ministry have been met, according to the report from the Judicial Power.

According to the issued ruling, «from the evidence presented to this Court by the participants, there are serious, precise, and consistent indications suggesting that the accused, Ángela Vivanco Martínez, taking advantage of her role as a Minister of the Supreme Court, accepted monetary compensation from two lawyers representing the Chilean-Belarusian company CBM (Lagos and Vargas) – with whom she had maintained a friendship since at least 2022 – in exchange for favoring the interests of CBM in its legal dispute with Codelco during the years 2023 and 2024, failing to disqualify herself as required, and participating with her vote in decisions that benefited the first of the identified companies.

Furthermore, it is stated that «an analysis of such evidence allows for the plausible inference that the accused, in her capacity as a public official, received money for herself and her partner in exchange for promoting CBM’s interests in the instances in which she participated as a member of the Highest Court, in violation of the principles of administrative ethics and her disqualification duties as a reflection of her statutory obligations, sums that she received knowing their illicit origin, which she used with intent of profit, concealing and disguising their illicit origin through various coordinated maneuvers with the other accused referred to in the four chapters of the accusation under analysis.

Read the full ruling HERE

El Ciudadano