Concerns Rise as Prosecutors Face Family Ties and Conflicts of Interest in La Polar and Achifarp Cases

The Northern District Attorney's Office is facing serious scrutiny. In the La Polar case, a prosecutor investigated without disclosing a conflict of interest with his brother-in-law, a key executive who was not charged. A similar pattern emerges in the Achifarp case, where the prosecutor's wife investigates her brother-in-law, who owns a competing business.

The Citizen

11/01/2026 11:36am

Original article: Fiscalía en la mira: Vínculos familiares y conflictos de intereses en casos La Polar y Achifarp amenazan imparcialidad

La Polar and Achifarp Cases: Unreported Conflicts of Interest in the Northern District Attorney’s Office

The La Polar case publicly erupted in 2011 when it was revealed that the company had unilaterally and massively renegotiated customer debts without their consent. The Northern District Attorney’s Office (FCN) managed the criminal investigation between 2011 and 2015.

Prosecutors Andrés Montes Cruz and José Morales Opazo led the case. During the investigation, the Public Ministry found that members of the so-called Renegotiation Committee were aware of the practices under scrutiny.

According to evidence included in the investigative file, emails and other proof show that Javier Vega Sepúlveda, then marketing manager of La Polar, was informed of and participated in the unilateral debt renegotiation processes.

Evidence indicates that Vega Sepúlveda was involved in decisions related to the so-called «Folder E,» which involved «energized» customers—consumers whose debts were unilaterally restructured without consent, a practice that was later deemed illegal by the courts.

Internal emails from the company confirm that committee executives, including marketing personnel, were aware of the renegotiation mechanisms and their application to the «energized» customer portfolio.

Despite the existence of this evidence, Vega Sepúlveda was not charged, remaining only as a witness in the case.

This outcome is particularly significant given that Vega Sepúlveda was directly related to prosecutor Andrés Montes Cruz as a brother-in-law—a relationship that existed throughout the case’s proceedings. Nevertheless, there is no public record of the prosecutor disqualifying himself or formally declaring this conflict of interest.

It is striking that this familial relationship—relevant regarding the obligation of impartiality—went largely unnoticed in media coverage of the case and was not the subject of public scrutiny during the years the investigation unfolded and key procedural decisions were made.

While other La Polar executives faced charges and convictions, Vega Sepúlveda was excluded from any criminal charges despite his managerial role and the documentary evidence linking him to the investigated acts.

Recurrent Pattern: The Achifarp Case

More than a decade later, a similar relational scheme reappears in the Achifarp case. Here, Javier Vega Sepúlveda is identified as the owner of the pharmacy chain Fracción, a company that competes directly with popular pharmacies, targeting the same consumer segment with the slogan «fair price medicines.»

The criminal investigation was assigned to prosecutor Giovanna Herrera, who is the wife of prosecutor Andrés Montes Cruz and the sister-in-law of Javier Vega Sepúlveda. The case aims to investigate potential irregularities linked to the Chilean Association of Popular Pharmacies (Achifarp), an organization that operates directly in the market where Vega Sepúlveda’s business competes.

Based on available information, there is no record that prosecutor Herrera disqualified herself or formally reported this family tie and its associated economic interest.

From a legal perspective, this situation constitutes an objective conflict of interest, as a prosecutor is involved in a case whose potential economic effects directly impact a close family member, a circumstance that, according to principles of impartiality and administrative integrity, warrants her disqualification or at least a clear declaration of the conflict.

«The involvement of a prosecutor in cases where direct family ties exist with parties holding significant economic interests compromises the Public Ministry’s duty of objectivity,» legal sources consulted for this report emphasize.

Thus, in both the La Polar and Achifarp cases, a continued pattern emerges of prosecutors intervening with direct family ties to individuals with significant economic interests in the investigations, with no public records of effective mechanisms to safeguard impartiality, transparency, or internal control by the Northern District Attorney’s Office.

As of the publication of this report, neither the Public Ministry nor the mentioned prosecutors have made any public statements regarding potential disqualifications, conflict of interest declarations, or internal administrative reviews related to these cases, despite the institutional importance of the evidence presented.

Considerations:

Image 1

Document from the SVS showing that Javier Vega, marketing manager at La Polar, was on the collection committee where unilateral debt renegotiations with delinquent clients took place. Five managers were charged. He was not. Andrés Montes did not disqualify himself. Several emails on the topic that he sends, receives, or is copied to Vega exist.