The King “totally” withdrew from the criminal complaint: they detail an agreement between Arturo Vidal and his cousin

On April 21, the footballer Arturo Vidal filed a complaint against one of his cousins, Carlos Albornoz Pardoand those who are responsible for the crimes of unfair administration and celebration of a simulated contract.

The complaint reported property transfers, loan applications, million-dollar debts and multiple civil lawsuits against their businesses in the country.

However, when the mess seemed to escalate, the King and his “uncle” smoked the peace pipe.

As detailed The Third PMthe King withdrew from the legal action in which he was claiming economic damages amounting to US$5 million due to alleged deception by someone he considered a close friend.

Apparently, as the months went by, Vidal concluded that there had been no intention to defraud him and decided to drop the charges.

Details of an agreement

On November 30, the Seventh Guarantee Court of Santiago took cognizance of the action that puts an end to the legal dispute. On December 6, the dismissal hearing was held.

“The plaintiff expressly and totally withdraws from the criminal complaint and from the extension of the same filed in the present case. The criminal complaint was filed by Mr. ARTURO ERASMO VIDAL PARDO on April 21, 2022 and in it the crimes of unfair administration, provided for and sanctioned in article 470 No. 11 of the Penal Code and granting of a simulated contract, of article 471 No. 2 of the same legal body. The complaint was admitted for processing by resolution dated April 22 of this year. The extension of the criminal complaint, for its part, was admitted for processing by means of a resolution dated June 2 of this year and in it the crimes of unfair administration, incompatible negotiation, granting of a simulated contract, and fraudulent obtaining of credits were charged, illicit activities foreseen and sanctioned, respectively, in articles 470 No. 11, 240 No. 6 and 471 No. 2, all of the Penal Code, and in article 160 of DFL 3 on the General Banking Law, respectively,” the presentation states.

Regarding the reasons for the agreement, it is detailed that “the withdrawal is based on the fact that, after a detailed study of the background information incorporated in the present case and of those of a commercial nature that linked the parties, which included the review of the background information provided by them, the controversies that existed between the parties have been overcome”.