We invite you to read the interview made by La Segunda to our partner Gabriel Zaliasnik, where he talked about the Australis salmon farming case.
Joyvio’s lawyer claims that the Chinese state-owned company was deceived when it purchased Australis from Isidoro Quiroga. The businessman will take the stand.
On January 15, at 9 a.m., the Public Prosecutor’s Office will formalize one of the richest businessmen in the country, the former owner of the Australis salmon company, Isidoro Quiroga. The alleged crimes being prosecuted by prosecutor Constanza Encina are fraud and unfair administration.
The case originates when Quiroga sold the salmon farm to the Chinese group Joyvio in 2019 for US$921 million. According to the company and its lawyer, Gabriel Zaliasnik, Quiroga would have concealed key information related to the overproduction of the salmon farm during the sale of Australis.
The accusation points out that this fraudulent act would have caused a millionaire damage to the current owners of the company, linked to the Chinese State. Zaliasnik warns that Chile’s image is at stake.
-What does the confirmation of the formalization imply for you?
It is a relevant turning point in any criminal case. It implies that the Public Prosecutor’s Office, after more than a year and a half of investigation, has acquired the conviction to formally charge the defendants with crimes, in this case, particularly Isidoro Quiroga, the then president of the company Martín Guilof, and Santiago Garretón, one of the senior executives and part of Quiroga’s close circle.
-The Prosecutor’s Office mentions two types of crimes.
The Prosecutor’s Office decided to formalize for the crimes of swindling and unfair administration. It should be recalled that at the time of the acquisition by Joyvio, Australis was listed on the stock exchange. For this reason, there is an extension of the lawsuit in progress, related to possible violations to the Securities Market Law, given that balance sheets and financial statements were provided that did not reflect the real situation of the company.
-Do you compare this case with the La Polar fraud, where false information was provided to the market to inflate the company’s valuation?
This is probably the biggest fraud in the history of Chile. That is why I believe that the January 15 formalization will be a historic milestone in Chile’s criminal procedure reform. It is significant to bring to the dock a businessman of the relevance of Isidoro Quiroga, who abused the public faith.
Precautionary measures
One of the questions is what precautionary measures the Prosecutor’s Office will request in the formalization. Zaliasnik does not anticipate details, but hints at his expectations.
Will they request the most burdensome precautionary measures?
I would just like to point out that in cases of much lesser importance, but of high public connotation, such as the Penta case, or at the time La Polar, or now the Factop case, the courts have imposed severe precautionary measures. Hopefully, Mr. Quiroga will not have to face precautionary measures of lesser intensity because of his particularly privileged economic position.
-Would this case fall under the current Economic Crimes Law?
Those who will be formalized have the relative fortune that the facts and the crimes in which they incurred took place before the current Economic Crimes Law was in force. If the current law were in force at the time these events took place, they would automatically face a hypothesis of preventive imprisonment and effective prison sentences after the oral trial.
-Before an operation there is a due diligence, where the interested parties know the data of the company they will buy.
The e-mails and exchanges between the parties show a whole set of deceitful maneuvers, omissions and deliberate actions aimed, in short, at defrauding foreign investors. Here, guarantees had been given by the seller that there was full compliance with environmental and other regulations, which were false, that is to say, that these false representations and guarantees were signed, does not exempt the defendants from responsibility.
-Quiroga’s defense speaks of persecution.
What there is is the rigorous definition of the controllers of the holding company in China to pursue criminal responsibilities until they become effective in the persons accused of these crimes. And that is why, at some point, even the Chinese ambassador stated on more than one occasion that he had confidence in the functioning or was observing the functioning of the Chilean judicial institutions.
-Do you believe that the Prosecutor’s Office has sufficient background, given that the criminal standard is high and everything must be proven beyond reasonable doubt?
The evidence, such as the emails between executives, many of which involve Isidoro Quiroga and his entourage, speaks for itself. Phrases like ‘don’t move the honeycomb’ or ‘there are the skeletons in the closet’ clearly reflect how the deception was constructed. Putting this evidence on timeline, it becomes clear the fraudulent intent.
