Frequently Asked Questions

In executive collection proceedings based on instruments such as promissory notes or bank loans, the most relevant defenses are built on Article 464 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Código de Procedimiento Civil), which governs the defenses admissible against enforcement. Among the most frequently invoked are prescription (ordinary or executive), the instrument’s lack of executive force, full or partial payment, nullity of the act or contract from which it arises, and falsity of the instrument where there is a discrepancy between what was signed and what is being claimed. What matters most is analyzing the chain of enforceability of the debt, the history of effective collection steps taken by the creditor, and the regularity of service of process. A well-structured defense can not only prevent attachment and enforcement, but also result in an award of costs in favor of the debtor when the court finds that the collection was improper or brought on insufficient grounds.

When a judgment becomes final and enforceable, all avenues of ordinary or extraordinary challenge are deemed exhausted, and it becomes an instrument with binding force. In enforcement matters, this enables a request for compulsory performance through liquidation of the amount owed, determination of costs, withholdings, attachments, and subsequent judicial auctions where applicable. From that point on, the court must issue the orders necessary for the judgment to be performed on its terms, including the assistance of law enforcement or coercive measures in cases of unjustified resistance. Finality is also relevant for calculating prescription periods: under Article 2515 of the Civil Code (Código Civil), the executive action prescribes in three years (surviving two more years as an ordinary action), and the ordinary action in five years.

The certification issued by the certifying officer (ministro de fe) is not a judicial ruling in the strict sense, but an administrative act of record. It can therefore be challenged through a reasoned motion for reconsideration (recurso de reposición) where there is an error in calculating the deadline, defective service, an unrecorded suspension of deadlines, or a provable circumstance of force majeure. The court is required to review the record and, where appropriate, correct the erroneous certification, since what matters is safeguarding the right to a defense and the adversarial principle. Courts have repeatedly admitted well-founded motions for reconsideration when the certification does not faithfully reflect the procedural status of the case.

When a bank judicially demands payment of an obligation that has been fully or partially extinguished, this constitutes a defect that can lead to the complete dismissal of the enforcement action. In these cases, the debtor can raise the defense of payment, submitting bank documentation, account statements, receipts, or renegotiation records that prove the debt was extinguished. If the bank sued without checking its internal records or presented contradictory information, this can result in an award of costs against it and, potentially, civil liability if the collection caused additional harm, such as improper attachments, damage to the debtor’s credit standing, or moral damages arising from negligent conduct.

Contract clauses that attempt to shift all liability onto the customer are usually reviewed under the standard of care required of financial institutions, which must ensure robust authentication systems, transaction monitoring, and adequate security controls. Consequently, not every instance of unauthorized access can be attributed to the user; to be released from liability, the bank must show that its infrastructure operated within reasonable parameters and that the customer’s conduct amounts to gross negligence. Courts have consistently held that merely invoking general “duty of care” clauses is insufficient, requiring a specific assessment of the incident. For that reason, the automatic rejection of a claim does not mean the right to challenge it in court is lost.

The court has broad powers to ensure the judgment is fully enforced. It can order the attachment of movable property, real estate, bank accounts, tax refunds, or other assets, and can order asset searches through official requests to public and private institutions. It can also order judicial auctions, wage withholdings, prohibitions on entering into acts or contracts, and the appointment of custodians. In cases of unjustified non-compliance, it has the power to impose coercive measures such as fines and the assistance of law enforcement. The guiding principle is that the judgment must be performed effectively, in a timely manner, and on the terms set out in the ruling.

When the instrument relied upon contains clauses that violate Law 19,496 (Ley 19.496) or financial system regulations, the debtor can challenge the validity of the obligation through the defense of nullity or lack of executive force. Courts examine whether the interest charged complies with the legal limits (including the maximum conventional rates) and whether the clauses meet the requirements of transparency and contractual balance. Where overcharges, improper ancillary charges, or mechanisms that undermine the customer’s valid consent are detected, the enforcement action can be dismissed or the debt recalculated. The bank must prove the legitimacy of the charge, and the burden of proof cannot be automatically shifted onto the consumer.

The current limit is a fiscal appraisal equal to or below 1,000 UTM, set by Law No. 21,737 (Ley N° 21.737), which applies equally to urban and rural properties (the previous cap was 380 UTM for urban and 800 UTM for rural land). As of June 2026, 1,000 UTM equals roughly CLP 71.5 million, but since the UTM is adjusted every month, it is advisable to calculate the amount using the value in force on the date of the application, which is the one Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (SII) takes into account. There is an emergency procedure (Law No. 21,741, Ley N° 21.741) that allows regularization without this cap in catastrophe situations or irregular settlements.

You must prove material possession of at least five years as of the date the application is filed. That possession must be peaceful, continuous, uninterrupted, and exclusive, meaning you act as the owner without acknowledging anyone else’s title and without ongoing disputes. Evidence can include, among other things, payment of property taxes and utilities, improvements or buildings on the land, and statements from adjoining neighbors. In addition, there must be no pending lawsuit over ownership or possession filed before the application.

Yes. When you do not want to, or cannot, regularize the entire property, it is possible to regularize a portion of it. This is especially useful when the total fiscal appraisal exceeds 1,000 UTM: by considering only part of the land, the proportional appraisal of that portion may fall within the legal cap. The final appraisal of the portion is determined by Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (SII) based on the survey and the subdivision. On our Land Title Regularization page you will find a calculator that prorates the appraisal by surface area and estimates whether the portion meets the 1,000 UTM cap.

The procedure before the Ministry of National Assets (Bienes Nacionales) carries a fee calculated according to the applicant’s Social Household Registry (Registro Social de Hogares): those within the most vulnerable 40% can obtain the procedure free of charge; between 41% and 60%, the applicable tier is paid; and above 60%, the full amount is paid. Payment is made at BancoEstado or online, and if the application is rejected after payment, a refund applies depending on the stage at which it is rejected. Professional fees may be added if you hire counsel to prepare and follow up on the case.

The Tax Code (Código Tributario) sets two periods. The general rule is three years counted from the expiration of the legal deadline to pay the tax (Article 200). That period extends to six years in the case of taxes subject to filing where no return was filed, or where the return filed was maliciously false. The Treasury’s collection action to pursue payment prescribes within the same periods (Article 201). It is worth checking the exact due date of each assessment or tax, because prescription runs separately for each debt and may have been interrupted or suspended.

During the procedure, notices are published in a regional newspaper and a sign is posted on the property, opening a 60 business day period for anyone who believes they hold rights over the property to file an opposition. The opposition must be substantiated and supported by evidence; merely asserting a right is not enough. If one is filed, the regional office (SEREMI) of the Ministry of National Assets (Bienes Nacionales) rules on it and, depending on the case, the matter may be referred to the courts. That is why a prior review of the background is key: it makes it possible to anticipate potential oppositions, gather the evidence of possession, and respond to them properly. A motion for reconsideration may also be filed against the resolution within five days.

In tax matters, the court can declare prescription on its own motion when hearing a challenge, but in practice it is always advisable to raise it expressly, either as a defense in the executive collection proceedings pursued by the General Treasury of the Republic (Tesorería) or as an argument before Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (SII). It is not enough for the debt to be old: prescription must be invoked, and it must be shown that the period under the Tax Code (Código Tributario) ran its full course without a valid interruption. That is why it is advisable to review the case file before the debt leads to attachments or other coercive measures.

The first step is to request a breakdown of the debt from the General Treasury of the Republic (Tesorería) or Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (SII) and identify the due date of each item. If the three or six year periods of the Tax Code (Código Tributario) elapsed without valid acts interrupting them, prescription can be raised. When collection is pursued through executive proceedings, prescription is asserted as a defense within the period the law allows once the demand for payment has been served. Acting in time is key, because letting the procedure advance can mean attachments or the withholding of refunds.

There is no single timeframe: it depends on the workload of the regional office (SEREMI), on the on-site survey, on the clarity of the boundaries, and on whether oppositions arise. The procedure advances in stages (filing and review, survey and resolution, publication of notices with a 60 business day opposition period, and registration with the Real Estate Registry (Conservador de Bienes Raíces)), so it usually takes several months. Submitting a complete and well-founded application from the outset, with the correct forms and certificates, is the best way to avoid observations that lengthen the process. After registration, ownership is consolidated by prescription once two years have elapsed with no actions against it.

Yes. Tax prescription is interrupted, among other cases, by the taxpayer’s written acknowledgment or undertaking, by the administrative notification of an assessment or tax determination, and by a judicial demand for payment. When interruption operates, the time already elapsed is lost and a new period begins to run. Suspension is different: it only freezes the count while a given circumstance lasts, after which it resumes. For that reason, before raising prescription it is worth checking whether there were notifications, partial payments, or acknowledgments that interrupted it, under the rules of the Tax Code (Código Tributario).

Monetary penalties and interest tied to a tax generally follow the fate of the principal obligation and prescribe within the same three or six year periods of the Tax Code (Código Tributario), counted from the date they became due. Fines that are not tied to the payment of a tax have their own prescription rules. Since the calculation depends on the type of obligation and the date of each assessment, it is worth reviewing the debt item by item, because it is common for part of the debt to be time-barred while another part is not.

Prescription of debts owed to the Chilean State (Fisco) is governed by the special rules of the Tax Code (Código Tributario): three or six years, with their own grounds for interruption and suspension. Debts between private parties, such as a consumer loan or a promissory note, are governed by the Civil Code (Código Civil) and by commercial rules, with different periods depending on the type of action (for example, the executive action has a shorter period than the ordinary one). That is why a bank debt and a tax debt, even if they are equally old, can be in different prescription situations. Each case should be analyzed under the rules that apply to it.

The first step is to contain the incident and preserve the digital evidence: access logs, emails, screenshots, and system records, avoiding any alteration of the compromised equipment. That evidence is decisive for a potential criminal complaint under the offenses of Law No. 21,459 (Ley N° 21.459) on computer crimes. In parallel, it is worth assessing whether the attack affected personal data of clients or employees, which triggers obligations under Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719), and whether the organization is subject to reporting duties before the cybersecurity authority. Acting quickly and with counsel reduces the damage and improves your legal position.

It depends on the activity. Law No. 21,663 (Ley N° 21.663), which establishes the cybersecurity framework and creates the National Cybersecurity Agency (ANCI), requires operators of essential services and entities classified as being of vital importance to manage risks and to report incidents that have significant effects, within the deadlines set by the regulations. Even if your company does not fall within those categories, reporting and documenting the incident is usually advisable, and if personal data was affected, additional duties may arise under Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719). Whether a legal reporting obligation exists should be reviewed case by case.

Law No. 21,459 (Ley N° 21.459) criminalizes, among other conduct, unlawful access to a computer system, the improper interception of communications, attacks on the integrity of a system or of data (for example, damaging, deleting, or altering information), computer forgery, and computer fraud. It also punishes the misuse of devices created to commit these crimes. The law provides for aggravating circumstances when relevant services or infrastructure are affected. If you were the victim of any of this conduct, early preservation of the digital evidence is key to supporting the criminal complaint.

A personal data breach can give rise to liability under Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719) on personal data protection, which requires adopting adequate security measures and, depending on the case, notifying breaches that affect data subjects. A criminal dimension may be added if the origin was unlawful access or an attack punishable under Law No. 21,459 (Ley N° 21.459). The company must document the incident, assess the risk to the affected individuals, and review its contracts with technology vendors. An orderly response reduces subsequent penalties and claims.

Yes. Accessing another person’s system, email, or account without the holder’s authorization can constitute the crime of unlawful access under Law No. 21,459 (Ley N° 21.459), even if no information is modified or taken. Knowing the password is not the same as being authorized to use it. If, in addition, communications are intercepted, data is altered, or the information is used to defraud, other crimes under the same law may apply. Nor is it an excuse that the account belongs to a family member, an ex-partner, or a coworker: the holder’s authorization is what matters.

Digital evidence is fragile and can lose its value if mishandled. It is advisable not to shut down or format the compromised equipment, to keep access logs and emails in their original format, and to document each finding with its date and time. Screenshots, complete backups, and the chain of custody help prove the facts in a criminal complaint for offenses under Law No. 21,459 (Ley N° 21.459) or in a civil lawsuit. When the incident is significant, the recommended course is to engage a computer forensics expert and legal counsel before intervening in the systems, so as not to compromise the evidence.

Law No. 21,643 (Ley N° 21.643), known as the Karin Law, amended the Labor Code (Código del Trabajo) to prevent, investigate, and punish workplace harassment, sexual harassment, and violence at work. It requires every employer, public and private, to have a prevention protocol, to provide a channel for receiving complaints, and to carry out an investigation with a gender perspective and due process within the legal deadlines. The law is built on the principle of a workplace free of violence, so compliance is not optional: the lack of a protocol or of a proper investigation exposes the company to penalties and lawsuits.

If you believe your dismissal was unjustified, wrongful, or improper, you can file a claim before the Labor Court (Juzgado de Letras del Trabajo) so that it is declared as such and payment of the statutory severance compensation plus the applicable surcharges is ordered. The general deadline to bring the claim is sixty business days counted from the date of separation; that period is suspended if you file a complaint with the Labor Inspectorate (Inspección del Trabajo) and resumes once that procedure ends, subject to a maximum cap. Given how short these deadlines are, it is advisable to gather the contract, pay slips, and dismissal letter as soon as possible, and to seek counsel so as not to lose the claim.

The so-called nullity of dismissal, or Bustos Law (Ley Bustos), applies when, at the end of the contract, the employer has not paid the worker’s social security contributions in full. In that case, the dismissal does not have the effect of ending the obligation to pay remuneration: the employer must keep paying wages and other benefits until it validates the dismissal by paying the contributions owed and notifying the worker of that payment. It is an important protective tool, so it is worth checking the status of the contributions before accepting a termination settlement (finiquito).

The deadlines depend on what is being claimed. To challenge a dismissal, the general deadline is sixty business days from the date of separation, which is suspended while a complaint is being processed before the Labor Inspectorate (Inspección del Trabajo). For claiming benefits arising from the contract (wages, vacation pay, overtime), longer prescription periods apply, counted, depending on the case, from the date the obligation became due or from the end of the employment relationship. Since each action has its own deadline, the prudent course is to review the situation as soon as the dispute arises so as not to run out of time.

Constructive dismissal (despido indirecto or autodespido) applies when it is the employer who commits a serious breach, for example failing to pay wages or social security contributions, breaching the obligations of the contract, or engaging in harassment. In that scenario, the worker can terminate the contract attributing the cause to the employer and sue for payment of severance compensation, as if they had been dismissed without justification. It is a delicate decision that requires solid proof of the breach and compliance with the formalities and deadlines, so it should be assessed with counsel before taking the step.

Law No. 21,643 (Ley N° 21.643) requires every employer to incorporate into its internal regulations a prevention protocol against workplace harassment, sexual harassment, and violence at work. That protocol must identify the risks, provide for prevention measures and for informing workers, and describe the complaint and investigation procedure, safeguarding confidentiality, impartiality, and defined deadlines, along with protective measures for the affected person while the process lasts. It must also provide for referral to the occupational insurance body (mutualidad) and follow-up of cases. Having a well-designed and properly applied protocol is both a legal obligation and a protection against future claims.

Law No. 20,393 (Ley N° 20.393) establishes the criminal liability of legal entities and allows that liability to be exempted or mitigated when the company has implemented an effective crime prevention model. Law No. 21,595 (Ley N° 21.595), on economic crimes, significantly broadened the catalog of offenses that can be attributed to the company, which makes the model relevant for organizations of every size, not only large ones. More than a document, the model must be operational and traceable: a risk matrix, a prevention officer, a whistleblowing channel, training, and controls applied in day-to-day operations. Assessing whether your company needs one is today a risk management decision, not merely a matter of formal compliance.

Law No. 21,595 (Ley N° 21.595) reorganized and toughened the treatment of economic crimes and environmental offenses, established its own penalty regime, and substantially expanded the catalog of offenses that can give rise to criminal liability of legal entities under Law No. 20,393 (Ley N° 20.393). Its entry into force is staggered. In practice, this means that many conducts in a company’s everyday operations now fall within the scope of criminal risk, so prevention models must be reviewed and updated to cover the new catalog. Ignoring this change leaves the company exposed to penalties that previously did not reach it.

Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719) modernizes the protection of personal data, creates the Personal Data Protection Agency (Agencia de Protección de Datos Personales), and enters into full force on December 1, 2026. Companies that process data will need a lawful basis for each processing activity, keep a record of processing activities, carry out impact assessments where applicable, sign contracts with their data processors, notify security breaches, and, in certain cases, appoint a data protection officer. Fines can be high. It is wise to use the time before the law takes effect to diagnose the company’s situation and bring its processes into line before the deadline.

Law No. 21,643 (Ley N° 21.643) requires every company to incorporate into its internal regulations a prevention protocol covering workplace harassment, sexual harassment, and violence at work, to set up a reporting channel, and to conduct investigations with due process, confidentiality, and defined deadlines, in addition to adopting protective measures for the affected person. From a compliance perspective, this means documenting the protocol, training managers, keeping a record of complaints, and being able to show that the company acted in accordance with the law. Merely nominal compliance offers no protection: in an inspection or a lawsuit, what is assessed is the effective application of the protocol.

The whistleblowing channel is a mechanism that allows employees and third parties to report irregular conduct safely and confidentially, such as acts that may constitute a crime, internal fraud, or harassment situations. It is a central component of the prevention model under Law No. 20,393 (Ley N° 20.393) and of the duties imposed by Law No. 21,643 (Ley N° 21.643), and it must guarantee the whistleblower’s confidentiality and the prohibition of retaliation. Beyond the legal requirement, a well-managed channel makes it possible to detect and correct problems in time, before they escalate into penalties or a court dispute. Its value depends on complaints being investigated and resolved seriously.

Without an effective prevention model, the company is more exposed to the criminal liability of legal entities under Law No. 20,393 (Ley N° 20.393), expanded by Law No. 21,595 (Ley N° 21.595) on economic crimes. That liability can translate into fines, asset forfeiture, bans on contracting with the State and even, in serious cases, the dissolution of the legal entity. Added to this are the reputational effects and the loss of the ability to invoke the model as an exempting or mitigating circumstance. An operational and traceable model not only reduces criminal risk: it also brings order to management and facilitates commercial relationships that increasingly demand compliance standards.

Yes. There is currently no specific artificial intelligence law in force, but that does not mean its use is free of rules. Already applicable are, among others, Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719) on personal data protection (relevant when AI processes information about individuals), the consumer protection rules of Law No. 19,496 (Ley N° 19.496), and the intellectual property regime of Law No. 17,336 (Ley N° 17.336). In addition, a bill is under discussion in Congress. The sensible course is therefore not to wait for the new law, but to use AI under a clear internal policy that defines what data may be uploaded, what the AI is used for, and who supervises the results.

Many companies already use generative AI tools without clear rules, which creates risks: leaks of confidential information or personal data, erroneous outputs used in decision-making, and intellectual property problems. An internal AI use policy defines which tools are permitted, what information may or may not be uploaded, how outputs are reviewed before being used, and who is responsible for each use. This helps comply with Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719) on data protection and anticipate the requirements of the future AI law. It is a simple governance measure that prevents bigger problems and brings order to the adoption of these technologies.

A bill regulating artificial intelligence systems is currently before Congress (Bulletin 16.821-19). Its approach is risk-based: it distinguishes systems of unacceptable risk (prohibited), high risk (with reinforced obligations such as risk management, human oversight, and documentation), limited risk (with transparency duties), and no evident risk. It also addresses the transparency of AI-generated content and provides for penalties. Because it is still a bill, its content may change during the legislative process, but it is worth following closely and preparing the organization for its requirements.

Uploading personal data of clients, employees, or third parties to an AI tool is a form of data processing and is subject to Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719). This requires having a lawful basis, informing the data subjects, limiting use to the declared purpose, and making sure the tool’s provider offers adequate safeguards, especially if the information is processed abroad. Uploading sensitive or confidential data to services without a contract or controls can create liability and leaks that are difficult to reverse. Before adopting a tool, it is advisable to review its terms, where the data is stored, and what the provider does with it.

This is an open and evolving question. Law No. 17,336 (Ley N° 17.336) on intellectual property protects works of human creation, so the authorship of content generated entirely automatically by an AI can be debatable. Added to this are the terms of use of each tool, which govern who owns the outputs and under what limitations they may be used commercially, and the risk that the content may reproduce third-party works. In practice, it is advisable to review the provider’s terms, keep a traceable record of human involvement in the creation, and avoid using outputs that could infringe the rights of others.

With caution. Law No. 21,719 (Ley N° 21.719) grants individuals rights with respect to automated decisions that significantly affect them, including profiling, which may entail the right to human intervention and to know the logic involved. Using AI for decisions on credit, hiring, dismissal, or customer service therefore requires transparency, genuine human oversight, and the ability to review and correct the outcomes. The AI bill under discussion aims to reinforce these requirements for higher-risk uses. Before automating a sensitive decision, it is advisable to assess its impact and always keep effective human control in place.

It depends on the number of partners, the line of business, the level of risk, and how you want to distribute profits and management. The most common options are the stock company (sociedad por acciones, SpA), very flexible and the usual vehicle for startups and incoming investors; the limited liability company (sociedad de responsabilidad limitada), traditional and simple to manage; the individual limited liability enterprise (empresa individual de responsabilidad limitada, EIRL), for a single owner; and the corporation (sociedad anónima) under Law No. 18,046 (Ley N° 18.046), designed for larger structures or companies with many shareholders. The choice affects taxes, liability, and future investment rounds, so it is best to settle it before incorporating.

There are two routes. The simplified regime of Law No. 20,659 (Ley N° 20.659) (the so-called “company in a day”) allows most company types to be incorporated, amended, and dissolved through an electronic form signed in the Registry of Companies and Societies (Registro de Empresas y Sociedades), without a public deed, quickly and at low cost. The traditional regime, through a public deed, registration in the Commerce Registry (Registro de Comercio), and publication in the Official Gazette (Diario Oficial), remains necessary or advisable in certain cases, such as corporations (sociedades anónimas) or complex structures. Which route to take depends on the type of company and on the agreements you want to include.

It is an agreement among the partners or shareholders that governs their relationship beyond what the bylaws provide. It typically establishes rules on management and decision-making, quorums for key matters, the entry and exit of partners, restrictions on the transfer of equity (such as preemptive rights or drag-along and tag-along rights), the distribution of profits, and dispute resolution mechanisms. A good agreement prevents deadlocks and future disputes, especially when investors come on board or partners with different roles coexist. It is best drafted at the outset, while the relationship between the parties is good.

The first step is to review what was agreed: the bylaws and the shareholders’ agreement usually contain rules on quorums, majorities, and mechanisms for breaking deadlocks. When those mechanisms are not enough, many corporate disputes are resolved through arbitration, which many bylaws make mandatory, and otherwise before the ordinary courts. Depending on the case, the dispute may involve the liability of the managers, the challenge of corporate resolutions, the exclusion or exit of a partner, or even the dissolution of the company. Early intervention, with the facts well documented, usually keeps the conflict from paralyzing the company.

Before closing the deal, it is advisable to conduct a legal review (due diligence) that confirms what you are buying and what risks you are taking on. It covers, among other things, the company’s incorporation and good standing, ownership of the equity interests, key contracts, debts and security interests, the labor and social security situation, permits and tax and regulatory compliance, as well as pending lawsuits or contingencies. The findings make it possible to adjust the price, require guarantees or representations from the seller, or even walk away. This review, together with a well-drafted purchase agreement, is the buyer’s best protection.

Beyond incorporation, a company must keep its operations in good legal standing. This includes keeping the accounts and books required by law, meeting its tax obligations before Chile’s Internal Revenue Service (SII), keeping its employees’ labor and social security obligations up to date, and complying with the rules specific to its line of business and with consumer protection law. Corporations under Law No. 18,046 (Ley N° 18.046) also have corporate governance duties, such as shareholders’ meetings and directors’ duties. Keeping this compliance current, ideally with ongoing counsel, reduces fines and disputes and eases access to financing and new business.

Projects and activities expressly listed by Law No. 19,300 (Ley N° 19.300) must be submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA), for example certain energy, industrial, real estate, agro-industrial, mining, or infrastructure projects that exceed the thresholds set by the regulation. The assessment is processed before the Environmental Evaluation Service (SEA), created by Law No. 20,417 (Ley N° 20.417). Determining whether a project must enter the system, and through which route, is key: carrying out an activity that required assessment without having obtained it exposes you to penalties and even to a shutdown of the works. It is advisable to analyze the case from the project’s design stage.

They are the two ways of entering the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA). The Environmental Impact Statement (DIA) applies when the project does not generate the significant effects or circumstances listed in Law No. 19,300 (Ley N° 19.300); it is a more limited procedure. The Environmental Impact Study (EIA) is required when the project can indeed generate those effects, such as risk to health, impact on natural resources or communities, or alteration of heritage; it involves a deeper analysis, mitigation measures, and, normally, citizen participation processes. Correctly classifying the project avoids rejections and delays, so it is advisable to assess it with technical and legal advice.

Indigenous consultation is a good faith dialogue process that the State must carry out with Indigenous peoples when an administrative measure or a project is liable to affect them directly, in accordance with ILO Convention 169. In the case of investment projects, it is usually channeled within the Environmental Impact Assessment System (SEIA) when the assessment detects a possible impact on communities or on their lands and customs. It is not a mere informational formality: it seeks to reach agreements and must be carried out in a prior, informed, and appropriate manner. Early, well-managed community engagement reduces the risk of challenges and of conflicts during execution.

The Superintendency of the Environment (SMA), created by Law No. 20,417 (Ley N° 20.417), oversees compliance with environmental permits (resoluciones de calificación ambiental) and with the sector’s regulations. If it brings charges, the holder has a deadline to submit its defenses and, in certain cases, to enter into a compliance program that allows it to correct the infringements and mitigate or avoid the penalty. Fines can be high and, in the most serious cases, can lead to closure or to revocation of the environmental permit. That is why it is key to act within the deadline, with a technical and legal strategy, and to properly document the corrective measures adopted.

Permitting (permisología) is the set of permits, authorizations, and sector approvals that a project needs in order to be built and to operate, in addition to its environmental assessment: for example construction, health, water, electrical, or land-use permits, before different State agencies. Delays usually arise from sequential procedures, requirements discovered late, or incomplete background information. A good strategy identifies from the outset all the applicable permits, their order, and their timelines, and coordinates their processing in parallel where possible. Anticipating permitting avoids cost overruns and the halting of the project.

Poor community engagement is today one of the main risks for an investment project. It can translate into a challenge to the environmental permit before the Environmental Courts or the Court of Appeals, into claims over an Indigenous consultation carried out improperly under ILO Convention 169, into conflicts and on-site work stoppages, and into reputational harm. Beyond the strictly legal, social license is decisive for the project’s viability. That is why it is advisable to integrate dialogue with communities from the design stage, with clear and documented agreements, and not to treat it as a final formality.

In the event of a breach, the Civil Code (Código Civil) generally allows you to choose between demanding specific performance of the obligation or seeking the termination of the contract (resolución), and in both cases claiming compensation for the damages caused (article 1489). The strategy depends on whether you are still interested in having the contract performed or prefer to set it aside and be compensated. It is key to gather evidence of the contract and of the breach, and to review the deadlines, because the actions are subject to prescription periods. An early analysis makes it possible to choose the most suitable route and, where appropriate, to obtain an award of costs.

When the tenant stops paying or does not return the property at the end of the contract, the path is to sue for the termination of the lease and the return of the property before the competent court, in accordance with Law No. 18,101 (Ley N° 18.101) on the lease of urban property. Law No. 21,461 (Ley N° 21.461) (“Devuélveme mi casa”) introduced a faster monitory procedure to obtain the return of the property and the collection of unpaid rent, with measures to speed up the handover. It is advisable to have on hand the contract, the proof of payment, and the communications with the tenant. Good case preparation reduces the timeframes and improves the chances of recovering the property and what is owed.

The first thing is to dispute the transaction with the bank or issuer through a means that leaves a record, immediately upon detecting it. Law No. 20,009 (Ley N° 20.009) governs liability for fraudulent transactions with means of payment and limits the holder’s liability when they have given timely notice; the issuer must refund the disputed amounts within the legal deadlines, unless it proves willful misconduct or gross negligence by the user. Keep the receipts, the complaint or ticket number, and all communications with the bank. If the bank refuses the refund without grounds, there are avenues for complaint before the National Consumer Service (SERNAC) and the courts.

As a general rule, yes. Under Law No. 20,009 (Ley N° 20.009), once the user gives notice disputing a transaction, the issuer must cancel or refund the disputed amounts within the deadlines set by law, and may only withhold or charge them if it proves that there was willful misconduct or gross negligence by the holder. It is not enough for the bank to claim that the passwords were used: the burden of proving the customer’s improper conduct falls on the institution. If the bank refuses to refund without proving those circumstances, you can file a complaint and sue for restitution, in addition to any corresponding compensation.

The essential thing is to notify the bank as soon as you detect the fraudulent transaction, since timely notice triggers the protection of Law No. 20,009 (Ley N° 20.009) and limits your liability. Beyond that immediate notice, you retain the right to claim restitution and, where appropriate, to sue for compensation, within the applicable prescription periods. It is advisable not to let time pass: review your account statements periodically, immediately dispute anything you do not recognize, and keep the record of the notice. If the bank does not respond or rejects the claim, you can turn to the National Consumer Service (SERNAC) and the courts to demand the refund.