Chile: defense alleges irregularities in the custody of seized slot machines from 2024 raid

Defense lawyers in a case over alleged illegal casinos in Concepción, Chile, are challenging how the prosecution handled 1,500 seized slot machines, saying the evidence was left under the custody of the complainant association itself. For PSPs and operators, the point is familiar: if chain of custody gets messy, the evidence can become a litigation problem before the merits even get discussed.

1. According to a document dated 5 August 2025 and signed by then Regional Prosecutor’s Office executive director Ximena Hassi, the Fiscalía Regional acknowledged that it had handed custody of 1,500 slot machines to the Asociación de Casinos, which had filed the complaint in the case. Those machines were seized during a 2024 operation that ended with 19 arrests.
2. Defense lawyer César Irribarra said the fact that the machines were kept by the complainant, rather than under neutral custody, could undermine their use as evidence at trial. The issue goes to the integrity of the evidence collected during the investigation and to whether the procedural safeguards were maintained.
3. The defense is asking whether the new regional prosecutor, Roberto Garrido, knew about the arrangement. Irribarra said he did not know whether Garrido had been informed, but added that if he had been, he hoped the prosecutor would consider not taking the case to trial.
4. Another defense lawyer, Giovanni Gotelli, did not publicly urge the regional prosecutor to act, saying it is for the authority to decide whether to take measures in response to what he described as irregular handling of the evidence. The Regional Prosecutor’s Office in Bío Bío said Garrido had not, so far, received a formal submission on the matter.
5. The investigation began under former regional prosecutor Marcela Cartagena and is now split into three cases, all in the trial-preparation stage. The defendants face charges including operation of illegal casinos, criminal association, money laundering, and clandestine trade, with reported sentences that could reach 25 years in prison.

The case is about more than one procedural dispute. It shows how high-risk gaming investigations can turn on evidence handling as much as on the underlying allegations, and why custody protocols matter when seized equipment is central to the prosecution’s theory.