Commentary on Case No. 15.066-2023-INA of the Constitutional Court of Chile regarding forfeiture applied to third parties not involved in the crime of timber theft

Abstract

This commentary examines the decision of the Constitutional Court of Chile, case No. 15066-2023-INA, regarding the forfeiture of motor vehicles in cases of timber theft. While the ruling is correct in its conclusion concerning the nature of this measure, it reveals contradictions in the majority opinion and underscores the importance of applying consistent legal standards that protect bona fide third parties. Two main issues are addressed. The first concerns the legal nature of the forfeiture established in article 448 septies, third paragraph of the Criminal Code, specifically in relation to the crime of timber theft. The second issue is whether its concrete application to third parties not involved in the offense raises a question of unconstitutionality. The analysis suggests that the Constitutional Court erred in upholding the claim, as the tension between article 448 septies, third paragraph of the Criminal Code and the general rule on forfeiture is a matter that can be resolved by an ordinary court, given that the specific case involves a misapplication of the law.