The executive director of Chile Transparente, Alberto Precht, referred to the situation involving the candidate for senator Karina Oliva, after Ciper will reveal the millionaire ballots of 7 of his collaborators in his campaign for the Metropolitan Government, and that amount to 137 million pesos and that he currently has it being investigated ex officio by the Public Ministry.
According to Precht, in conversation with The Counter at La Clave, this discussion was held in “2015 and it is unfortunate that we have it again, because the regulations were effectively perfected, but there is no law that can, effectively, be put into all the unethical standards of the people. He talks about the institutionality failing, that’s why, of course, that’s why I’m talking about ‘Alan Brito’, because we are patching it up as they come up with new ways of defrauding the law, of some people. And I speak with those words because indeed it that we have here is a fraud, which may or may not have a criminal implication, because what it ultimately seeks is to distort the objective of the regulation. “
“Why do I say this? Because the same explanation that Karina Oliva gives, she points out that what she wanted was to finance pre-election periods, such as a primary campaign and, on the other hand, pay other services with certain bills. And that is not the same as an ideologically false ballot that we discussed in 2016. And that is what really bothers. It is good that the Public Ministry has initiated an ex officio investigation. It is good that the Electoral Service has also clarified and it is important to note that in this In this case, as the second round surrender is still missing, the process can be taken as a whole. For the same reason, what had already been resolved could be changed a little. And on the other hand, we also hope that the SII will do its part regarding the recognition of this tax failure that makes the candidate Oliva, “he added.
Regarding the investigation initiated by the Prosecutor’s Office, Precht explained that “we have to see what the criminal offenses are. In this case, subsidy fraud is a crime that can last five years if repeated, etc., but it is difficult. But if we add to that tax crimes, we add that this could have been repeated and the Electoral Service, in addition, denounces or complains about any of the criminal types of electoral crimes that are established in the new legislation. There is perhaps a void there, because the figure may not be complete, this figure of Karina Oliva and could indeed be more burdensome, but that this effectively has to lead to a criminal process and this criminal process can have an oral trial, it can be determined and obviously also with the disqualification of this person from holding public office, at least for a certain time. “
In the report of CiperBesides Oliva, Catalina Parot and Rojo Edwards were also mentioned. “It must also be given importance, it cannot be left out, what happens is that the other is so systemic, and the amounts are so high and the return that is requested is so high. They are very large comparisons. That is, even from the point of view of the criminal reproach, obviously there would be a different criminal reproach. But yes, clearly it is especially in the case of Catalina Parot’s adviser, there is something that draws something deeply attention because we are also talking about a public official, there that possibly there are other instances that could do something, although the CNTV is autonomous, as far as the inspection of this person who provided services has been provided outside of working hours “.
“There is at least one summary or something internal should happen in the National Television Council in this specific case. The other case is even more interpretable. But that rationality is once again: Why if we bet on public financing of the campaigns, which cost us so much to have it, we are today cheating on our own? And what does this do? Raise the voices that say ‘hey, but politics does not have to be financed by the State, it has to be financed by the We had already resolved that dilemma, let’s not go back in having a policy that is captured by other interests and let’s do things well, make decisions well and not expose ourselves to this type of crime, “he said.
Finally, Precht again referred to the investigation of the Prosecutor’s Office against Oliva: “The important thing is that the Public Ministry can investigate it directly, without a complaint, which is not happening. We are much better and that is why we have to be outraged, because it was done so much effort that we cannot allow these situations. We have to learn that Corpesca and SQM were what detonated the social outbreak, we cannot allow Oliva, Parot and Edwards to make us question our democracy. “
