/ Reform of the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Its Implications for Corporate Criminal Compliance

The recent reform, which strengthens and modernizes the Public Prosecutor’s Office and is currently in its final stage of constitutional review, introduces significant changes to its internal organization, oversight systems, and institutional controls. Although its primary objective is to improve the prosecution of complex crimes, the strengthening of the Prosecutor’s Office’s technical and investigative capabilities could indirectly impact the standards used to evaluate corporate criminal compliance models.

Raúl Montero
Partner

Luis Fuentes
Area Director

The National Congress recently approved the bill that strengthens and modernizes the Public Prosecutor’s Office, currently in its final stage of review before the Constitutional Court. The initiative introduces significant amendments to the Organic Constitutional Law of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, aimed primarily at improving its institutional structure, its oversight systems, and its capacity to investigate complex crimes.

Although the central objective of the reform is to strengthen criminal prosecution against phenomena such as organized crime or economic crime, several of its institutional changes may also have indirect effects in the area of corporate criminal compliance.

Institutional Reorganization and New Units

One of the cornerstones of the reform is the reorganization and strengthening of the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s internal structure through the creation and consolidation of divisions focused on strategic planning, information analysis, management control, and oversight of criminal prosecution.

These units aim to improve institutional coordination, develop investigative standards, and strengthen the analysis of data relevant to the prosecution of complex crimes.

From a practical standpoint, these types of tools can contribute to more structured investigations into complex criminal activity, particularly economic crimes, fraud, corruption, or money laundering—areas where sophisticated corporate and financial structures often exist.

Criminal Prosecution Oversight System

The reform also establishes a Criminal Prosecution Oversight System, which includes annual oversight plans and periodic external evaluations to measure the efficiency and quality of institutional operations.

These mechanisms aim to strengthen accountability within the Public Prosecutor’s Office and move toward more uniform investigative standards. In practice, this could result in more consistent and technically structured investigations.

Division of Probity, Integrity, and Internal Audit

Another significant change is the creation of the Division of Probity, Integrity, and Internal Audit, which includes an Internal Integrity and Probity Unit and the appointment of a Compliance Officer with responsibilities related to risk management, administration of reporting channels, monitoring of regulatory compliance, and development of a crime prevention model within the institution.

From a technical perspective, this design incorporates tools typical of compliance models into the internal structure of the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

This aspect is particularly interesting, as it reflects a broader institutional trend: public authorities are adopting compliance mechanisms similar to those traditionally required of the private sector.

A Signal for Corporate Compliance

Strictly speaking, the reform does not directly alter companies’ obligations. However, the institutional strengthening of the Public Prosecutor’s Office—especially regarding analysis, supervision, and internal control—may in practice raise the standard for investigations related to economic or corporate crimes.

Thus, the reform can be interpreted as a significant signal for the world of compliance: the criminal prosecution system is moving toward more specialized and data-driven structures, which will likely require increasingly robust, traceable, and operational prevention models.