L'affaire Vivanco ajoute un nouveau côté: des paiements de 27 millions de dollars à Migueles et la polémique sur sa déclaration

In a new development in the ongoing investigation into former Supreme Court judge Ángela Vivanco, former partner Gonzalo Migueles has revealed that she was aware in September 2023 that he would receive payments from Eduardo Lagos, an attorney representing the Belarusian consortium Belaz-Movitec (CBM). According to Migueles' testimony given on September 3, 2026, Vivanco learned during a conversation about machinery movements that Lagos would share the case's proceeds with him if things went well for CBM in its legal dispute with Codelco. This revelation complicates Vivanco’s position, as it suggests she knew of potential financial benefits tied to her rulings in the case. The testimony, which spans 12 pages, was submitted to the Public Ministry and marked a collaboration with the investigation. As a result, Migueles was released from preventive detention on September 30, 2026. In his statement, Migueles clarified that he did not disclose specific amounts to Vivanco, as he had only agreed with Lagos to receive money upon achieving positive results in the case. Migueles detailed that this awareness occurred before the attorneys Eduardo Lagos, Gabriel Silber, and Mario Vargas filed a resource on September 21, 2023, regarding losses incurred by CBM due to the immobilization of their equipment in the dispute with Codelco. Seven days later, the Third Chamber of the Supreme Court accepted the request in favor of CBM, with Vivanco's vote being pivotal. This decision led to Codelco paying $4.4 billion to the consortium. Despite knowing that her former partner would benefit financially from the ruling, Vivanco did not recuse herself from the case. In his testimony, Migueles focused on Lagos as the sole individual within the law firm representing CBM who was aware of these discussions. He mentioned Lagos 69 times in his declaration, while referring to Silber and Vargas only eight times. This distinction highlights Migueles' attempt to limit the scope of the alleged collusion to Lagos alone. The implications of Migueles' statements are significant, as they contradict previous claims made by both Migueles and Vivanco, who previously stated that Vivanco was unaware of any payments. His new account adds another layer of complexity to the investigation into potential corruption involving the Supreme Court.