The situation surrounding the Koriun Inversiones case has generated growing concern in Honduras due to the apparent lack of effective action by the government and the Public Prosecutor’s Office. More than six months after the financial scandal involving this unregulated company, thousands of those affected continue to have no clear answers or significant judicial progress. The absence of strong prosecutorial demands and the lack of significant arrests have fueled suspicions of possible institutional protection for those responsible, creating a climate of mistrust and public questioning.
Simultaneously, the administration‘s plan to allocate taxpayer money to reimburse the victims of this fraud has sparked a legal and moral discussion regarding the appropriateness of such an action. Specialists in law and business communities have cautioned that this plan might represent an inappropriate use of government resources, posing a potential threat of legal consequences for the authorities involved. This scenario has heightened calls from the public for openness, fairness, and adherence to legal principles in a matter that underscores the conflict between safeguarding public funds and addressing harm caused by private actions.
Institutional passivity and inquiries regarding the management of the Koriun affair
The Public Prosecutor’s Office has faced accusations of purposeful delay in examining the Koriun situation, even with formal complaints, testimonies, and records indicating notable irregularities in the functioning of this unauthorized financial entity. The National Banking and Insurance Commission (CNBS) admitted it had received at least two complaints before the collapse of Koriun but did not act promptly to avert damage to thousands of Hondurans who placed their savings with this organization. This seeming inaction has fostered a perception of partial concealment, particularly given suggestions of connections between Koriun’s promoters and influential political figures.
Affected individuals and civil groups have voiced their disappointment and insisted that measures be implemented impartially, urging for the prosecution of those accountable, irrespective of their political or corporate ties. The potential discussion of using public funds for compensation has heightened fears of an impunity deal, leading to online outcry and protests at governmental buildings. Citizens are insisting that the Public Prosecutor’s Office speak out, initiate official proceedings, and ensure a fair and open inquiry, involving international bodies if needed.
Legal and ethical debate on the use of public funds to repair a private fraud
The plan of the Honduran government to use taxpayer funds to compensate for Koriun’s losses has faced substantial opposition from legal, economic, and business communities. The proposal, which is reportedly under consideration by the executive division, attracts criticism due to the lack of state fiscal accountability, as Koriun was neither a part of the regulated financial network nor was it monitored by the CNBS. The Constitution and the State Financial Administration Law set forth explicit restrictions on employing public assets, forbidding their application to settle debts that emerge from private transactions beyond the legal boundaries.
Legal experts in constitutional matters caution that approving a disbursement of this nature could be classified as a crime involving misuse of power and misappropriation, leading to legal repercussions for the officials implicated. Additionally, it is highlighted that such an action would create a risky precedent by endorsing impunity and potentially enabling future financial scams, which could pressure the government to cover the financial shortfalls, thus impacting fiscal stability and public trust. The Honduran Association of Banking Institutions (AHIBA) along with business organizations have voiced their concerns, emphasizing that it would be unjust for law-abiding taxpayers to shoulder the consequences of a fraud executed by individuals outside the official framework.
Civil society organizations have requested that any attempt to use public funds be investigated by the Superior Court of Accounts and the Attorney General’s Office, and that transparency be guaranteed in the decisions of the executive branch. The consensus among experts and social sectors is that responsibility should fall exclusively on those guilty, without compromising public assets or trust in institutions.
