The formalization of the former mayor of Vitacura, Raúl Torrealba, set for next February, will mark the beginning of the management of Ángel Valencia at the command of the Public Ministry, in this case, heading the prosecution body in matters of corruption. However, his links with the former mayor and former mayor of Lo Barnechea, Felipe Guevara –linked to Torrealba and accused of being one of the ideologues of a model for diverting municipal money through functional community organizations– has caused pro-government parliamentarians and civil society organizations request that the new National Prosecutor stay out of any participation in the criminal investigations that arose as a result of the case uncovered in Vitacura.
In this regard, the executive director of América Transparente, Juan José Lyon, warned about the possible similarities in the fraud mechanisms used in the municipalities of Vitacura and Lo Barnechea, and disclosed new information, which has not yet been investigated, regarding the triangulations of money in the municipality whose mayor was Felipe Guevara, and which account for exorbitant figures, which are much higher, even, than in the noisy case involving Raúl Torrealba. “There is more here than just a model copy, and the amounts are larger, although the modus operandi is the same, so we raise the alert that this has to be investigated, because we are probably talking about the same thing,” Lyon said.
In this sense, the executive director of the aforementioned foundation raised the possibility that we are facing “a major case of corruption”, since in both municipalities the diversion would correspond to millions in amounts and that they did not surrender to anyone, through entities that, being functional community organizations, escape the control of the Comptroller’s Office and the scope of the Transparency Law. Finally, and regarding the professional relationship between Guevara and the National Prosecutor, Ángel Valencia, he questioned the fact that the existence of this link became evident after his election, which, in his opinion, remains credibility of the institution.
-What is the eventual relationship between the cases of corruption in the municipalities of Vitacura and Lo Barnechea? Based on the background that you handle as a foundation, are there similarities between the two cases? What is the link between Felipe Guevara and Raúl Torrealba?
-So far, the former mayor Felipe Guevara has been named by some of the key witnesses, but we are not clear if in the investigation, when those involved are formalized, they will also be investigated. But he has been named by the witnesses as someone who devised this system, but the alert that we have raised as a foundation is that Felipe Guevara was probably involved, because he was an important part of Torrealba’s cabinet when this was happening. But, in addition, what we want to alert is that we believe that we are talking about a major case, and that what happened in Vitacura is the tip of an iceberg of a major case that involves the municipalities of the eastern sector.
-If indeed it were the same model applied in both municipalities, why is the case of Lo Barnechea more serious and why said resource management escapes the inspection of the Comptroller’s Office and the Transparency Law?
-Specifically in Lo Barnechea, if one reviews the documentation and data that exists through Transparency, what Felipe Guevara did was copy the same model from Vitacura in Lo Barnechea. And why do we think we are talking about an even more serious case? Because the amounts involved are higher, considering that, throughout Torrealba’s administration, the entities life More than 15 billion pesos were transferred to them, but in the case of Guevara, in the entities he created in Lo Barnechea, 41 billion pesos were transferred. In other words, the amounts transferred by the municipality to these entities, which are community organizations that are not part of the municipality and therefore escape Transparency controls, are much higher in Lo Barnechea. For this reason, we advise that this case should be investigated now, because it is exactly the same model initially applied in Vitacura.
-About that, what? Other antecedents are handled about the triangulations of money in Lo Barnechea, whose actions maintain conditions similar to those carried out in Vitacura?
-Another thing that the key witnesses have said is that the money that came out of these entities life They came from two sources: from the municipal subsidy and from the own income that these entities had in Vitacura, mainly from advertising spaces. And Felipe Guevara did the same, for example, in a well-documented case related to a fight between Guevara and the current mayor, Cristóbal Lira, over advertising space that Guevara transferred to Lo Barnechea Deportes, whose funds, which were they leased in an amount close to 200 million pesos per year, they did not go to the municipality, in amounts that are not given to anyone. In this regard, we raised the concern that, just like the advertising amounts that were not paid to anyone in Vitacura, exactly the same thing happened in Lo Barnechea.
Do you think that the links and similarities between the two cases could account for a larger corruption case? What other factor, in your opinion, is decisive to support this hypothesis?
-Another thing that is also worrying is that, within the investigation in Vitacura, a series of names have begun to come out, of people involved in the Torrealba circle, who at the same time worked in Lo Barnechea. In fact, the lawyer who advised Torrealba when these entities were created, Andrés Ibarra, participated at the same time in one of these entities in Lo Barnechea. There is also talk, as mentioned by some witnesses in the Vitacura investigation, that some funds came from there for the campaign of former deputy Sebastián Torrealba, who also presided over one of these entities in Lo Barnechea. That is to say, it is not that only a model of opening these entities was copied –as Vita– in Lo Barnechea, but many of the people in the Torrealba circle also participated, in some way, in corporations or entities in Lo Barnechea.
So there is more than just a model copy, and the amounts are larger, although the modus operandi is the same, so we raise the alert that this has to be investigated, because we are probably talking about the same thing, and when we have the combination that they are millionaire amounts and that they are not given to anyone, as is the case of these entities, which because they are functional community organizations escape the control of the Comptroller’s Office and the Transparency Law, there may be a greater case of corruption.
-Finally, what is your vision of the professional relationship between Guevara and the National Prosecutor, Ángel Valencia, and how could this relationship affect the case that the current investigation expands to Lo Barnechea?
–The link that Valencia has with Guevara is undeniable, because he not only represented him as his client, beyond the fact that he says he has not met him, Rather, during his presentation in the Senate, he also omitted this relationship to fees –which we learned about later–, and also understanding that, when Guevara becomes mayor, the lawyer also follows him. So, clearly there is a professional relationship, and what the National Prosecutor will have to do is abstain in the event that this investigation expands to Lo Barnechea, because, although the National Prosecutor does not intervene in the case, he can make decisions regarding change or not prosecutors, so he should abstain.
Now, we think that it is unfortunate that this information became known after his election, because what was criticized a lot about Jorge Abbott’s management was how he acted in the prosecution of cases of irregular financing of politics, and I think it would be bad for the country if doubts were raised about how this investigation is going to be carried out. Ultimately, it takes away the credibility of the institution, and that is bad for the country in general.
