SII detects more than US$3.200 million abroad without declaring; government reduces 56 convictions for sexual crimes against minors, and Hermosilla requests for the second time inhability of prosecutor

The defense for criminal lawyer Luis Hermosilla has filed a second request to disqualify prosecutor Lorena Parra from leading the investigation into him. The motion was submitted to National Prosecutor Angel Valencia, arguing that Parra lacks the necessary objectivity due to prior professional interactions with the accused. This legal maneuver occurs within the framework of the Case Factop, also referred to as the Audio Case, which involves serious allegations against the prominent litigator. In the two-page document, led by Hermosilla’s brother Juan Pablo, the defense argues that Parra’s role as both witness and investigator compromises her independence. They highlight that Parra testified in the very criminal proceeding she directs. During this testimony, she acknowledged a direct relationship with Hermosilla that extends beyond standard professional courtesy. Specifically, she admitted to asking him to circulate her curriculum vitae and provide references to court ministers regarding her application for the position of Metropolitan East Regional Prosecutor. The new petition introduces additional elements concerning late 2022 political maneuvers. The defense claims Parra failed to publicly explain conversations where she sought Hermosilla’s support for the candidacy of Marta Herrera for the role of National Prosecutor. Herrera, who served as director of the National Prosecution Service’s Anti-Corruption Unit, was the continuity candidate following Jorge Abbott. She was the second nominee proposed by President Gabriel Boric after Jose Morales. Her nomination was rejected by the Senate on December 19, 2022. Juan Pablo Hermosilla noted in the filing that his brother and Parra maintained a good relationship based on previous cases. He stated that Parra acted in good faith regarding leaks during the investigation. However, he contended that known circumstances compromise the required independence of the prosecutor. The document describes Herrera as a personal friend of Parra, though it does not attach the content of their specific conversations or detail the exact efforts Hermosilla made at Parra’s request. Previously, in 2024, Hermosilla had already requested Parra’s disqualification. That initial move followed his success in reopening parts of the investigation to allow Parra to testify as a witness. The current submission builds on that foundation, asserting that the totality of these interactions creates an appearance of bias. Messages exchanged during Parra’s campaign included expressions of gratitude from the prosecutor to the lawyer for his assistance in securing her professional advancement. Separate developments were reported alongside this legal update. The Chilean Internal Revenue Service detected more than 3.2 billion dollars in undeclared assets held abroad. Additionally, the government reduced fifty-six convictions related to sexual crimes against minors. These administrative and judicial actions occurred concurrently with the ongoing procedural battles in the Hermosilla case. Parra currently leads the investigation affecting the penalist. The defense maintains that her prior receipt of professional help from the accused undermines her ability to judge him impartially. They seek for Valencia to change the leadership of the case. The core of the complaint rests on the intersection of personal favors and official duties, specifically regarding the dissemination of professional credentials and political endorsements during the 2022 selection process for high-ranking prosecutorial positions. The outcome of this second disqualification request will determine whether Parra continues to direct the proceedings against Hermosilla. The defense emphasizes that the lack of public explanation from Parra regarding the 2022 exchanges is a critical factor. They argue that transparency requires her removal to ensure a fair trial. The National Prosecutor’s office has not yet issued a final ruling on the motion. The case remains active, with both sides focusing on procedural integrity and the admissibility of evidence gathered under Parra’s supervision.