Receiving Stolen Goods in Chile

What this involves

Chilean criminal law punishes receptación: buying, holding, transporting, selling or otherwise dealing in goods that came from theft, robbery, cattle rustling or misappropriation, when the person knew their origin or could not have failed to know it. The offense is in article 456 bis A of the Código Penal. The key phrase is "could not have failed to know". Prosecutors do not need a confession. They usually rely on circumstances such as a price far below market value, a street sale, an anonymous online listing or missing paperwork.

This reaches foreigners in very ordinary situations: a tourist who buys a used phone from a stranger, an expat who purchases a second-hand car with irregular papers, or a small importer whose supplier turns out to be reselling stolen stock. The case is run by the Ministerio Público before a Juzgado de Garantía, and the first decision, usually within 24 hours of an arrest, can shape everything that follows.

What we handle

How prosecutors prove "knowledge"

Receptación needs a mental element, but Chilean courts accept indirect proof. They look at how far the price was below value, where and how the sale happened, the buyer's experience with that kind of goods, whether serial numbers were altered and whether the seller could produce an invoice or registration. A foreign buyer who paid half the market price in cash to a stranger faces a very different file from one who bought from a licensed shop and kept the receipt.

The defense therefore concentrates on a plausible, documented explanation. The offense carries a prison term and a fine, and penalties can be higher in aggravated situations, so even a first-time foreign defendant should take it seriously from the first day.

What happens to the goods, and to your travel plans

Seized property is held as evidence. The rightful owner can ask for its return, and a buyer who paid for it may have a civil claim against the seller. While the case is open, the judge can impose precautionary measures. For visitors, the one that matters most is a ban on leaving the country. We argue for the least restrictive option and, when a case allows it, look at whether later hearings can be handled by counsel rather than by you in person.

A conviction can also matter later for visa or residence applications, which is one more reason not to treat a small case as a formality.