Criminal conviction for economic crimes bars executive from managerial positions: the gap the hiring process cannot close

How do you find out that the executive you just hired is legally barred from holding the position? That question, until now hypothetical, has just become concrete. On March 13, 2026, the 4th Criminal Court of Santiago (Case Rol Ordinaria-917-2025) convicted a sales executive under Law No. 21,595 on Economic Crimes, published on August 17, 2023, for disclosure of trade secrets and unauthorized access to a computer system. The sentence includes a three-year disqualification from holding managerial positions. The problem: the Labor Authority (Dirección del Trabajo) restricts the requirement of criminal background checks in the hiring process, and that gap has no easy solution.

What happened

On March 13, 2026, the 4th Criminal Court of Santiago issued a conviction in Case Rol Ordinaria-917-2025. The defendant was a sales executive at a technology solutions company. The facts: after submitting a voluntary resignation, the executive accessed the employer's internal IT platform and massively downloaded reports containing confidential information about prospects and clients. The executive then deleted those files from the same platform.

The court convicted on two criminal charges that Law No. 21,595 incorporated into the criminal catalog with broader scope: disclosure of trade secrets — which recognizes a company's strategic information as a criminally protected legal interest — and unauthorized access to a computer system, a category that is not limited to external attackers but also reaches internal workers operating beyond the limits of their authorization.

The sentence imposed 541 days of imprisonment (presidio menor en su grado medio) and a fine. The accessory penalties are what open the corporate debate: disqualification from holding public office for the duration of the sentence, a ban on contracting with the State, and — most relevant for the private sector — a three-year disqualification from holding managerial positions.

The ruling's message is blunt: anyone who commits economic crimes in the course of their employment can be temporarily excluded from the managerial market by judicial decision.

What this could mean for your company

The sentence is consistent with the spirit of Law 21,595. The complexity lies not in the ruling but in what it leaves unanswered on the employer's side.

The Dirección del Trabajo maintains a doctrine that expressly restricts requesting criminal background certificates in hiring processes. The standard — set out in Ruling No. 628 of February 3, 2017 — holds that requiring such information violates the right to non-discrimination when there is no direct and strict connection to the duties of the position. There are only narrow exceptions, such as the one established for teaching and educational support staff at subsidized schools (Ruling No. 5818, December 5, 2016) and for those working directly with minors (Law No. 20,594 and the Disqualification Registry).

Here is the real tension: Law 21,595 can generate private-sector managerial disqualifications, but the employer has no clear legal avenue to verify whether an executive candidate is subject to one. The disqualification exists, is public within the criminal case file, but there is no mechanism that compels the candidate to disclose it or authorizes the employer to request it without risking a discrimination challenge before the DT.

This has two practical readings. First: if you hire a disqualified executive and the condition becomes known later, the risk is not just operational — it is a compliance and reputational risk. Second: if your company is the victim in a case like this one, the ruling shows that Law 21,595 offers a concrete criminal pathway — with conviction, fine, and disqualification — against conduct that was previously managed mainly through civil or labor channels, with more uncertain outcomes.

There is another angle that should not be ignored. The ruling does not resolve how the employer accesses this information before hiring. That gap — between the criminal protection available to the company and the labor doctrine restricting access to criminal records — is a point that will foreseeably need to be addressed by the DT or the legislature in the short term.

What you can do

If your company has executives with access to client databases, commercial reports, or sensitive intellectual property, the scenario in this ruling is not a textbook case. Three concrete actions:

1. Review employment and confidentiality agreements for positions with access to critical systems. The ruling confirms that disclosure of trade secrets and unauthorized system access can lead to criminal conviction with managerial disqualification. Contracts must precisely define the scope of authorized access, confidentiality obligations, and the consequences of breach, including after the employment relationship ends.
2. Update due diligence protocols for hiring managerial positions. Without being able to generally require background certificates, other avenues are available: a sworn declaration by the applicant confirming the absence of legal disqualifications for the position, structured reference checks, and review of accessible public records. None of these alternatives contravenes the DT's doctrine, and together they provide a basic verification layer.
3. Establish digital offboarding procedures that limit a departing executive's ability to access, download, or delete system information once a resignation is submitted or during the notice period. This case occurred precisely in that window: the breach was possible because there were no technical or contractual controls to close it.

If you need to review your employment and confidentiality agreements in light of Law 21,595, or design due diligence protocols for hiring managerial positions, schedule a consultation with Cubillos Lama

This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.