Ulloa's other statements: "I realized that Migueles took advantage of the situation doña Ángela was in"

In total, there have been at least six occasions on which the former minister of the Santiago Court of Appeals, Antonio Ulloa, has appeared before the Prosecutor's Office so far. On all those occasions, the magistrate testified as a suspect before the case prosecutor, the Valparaíso regional prosecutor, Claudia Perivancich, who is investigating alleged corruption crimes in the Judiciary. On those same occasions, Ulloa has been accompanied by his defense, public criminal defenders Sandra Haro and Francisco García. This Tuesday, La Tercera revealed three of the six statements that the former magistrate has made, to which three more testimonies are now added. Ulloa's new appearances, which this outlet also had access to, took place on July 13, 23, and 31. On those occasions, the removed judge — who is counting down to facing a chapters complaint — addressed a variety of topics, from explaining his criteria for recusals, the details of his substantial expenses, and even his relationship with others implicated in the case, such as the former minister of the Supreme Court, Ángela Vivanco; the Puente Alto Conservator of Real Estate, Sergio Yáber; the lawyers Luis Hermosilla, Mario Vargas, Samuel Donoso, and Gabriel Zaliasnik, or even the notary Francisco Leiva. The recusals At the beginning of his July 13 statement, Ulloa is asked by prosecutor Perivancich about the recusals. On this point, the former minister explained that "it was always about the party, not the lawyer. In that case, I stated grounds for recusal involving commercial establishments and banks, and therefore, when it comes to a specific person such as would be the case of Hermosilla, Donoso, or Vargas, there are two possibilities: doing so through these generic recusals or at the moment when the minister verifies that there may be some type of recusal with any of the parties." In that regard, he detailed that after the Audio case scandal, he disclosed — even though he did not agree with the legal criterion — recusals involving private lawyers with whom he had closeness. On the same subject, he was asked why he did not include Leiva, Donoso, and Zaliasnik in his recusals: "I did not mention them. Regarding Donoso and Zaliasnik, I have no close familiarity with them, without prejudice to the fact that grounds for recusal are with the party and not with the lawyer. And with Leiva, it did not correspond to do so generically, but rather case by case, because he is not a litigator." Dedvi Missene Regarding those friendship relationships, Ulloa was asked how he met those lawyers. Along with detailing that, he emphasized that "I did not travel abroad with Hermosilla, Donoso, or Zaliasnik. I have only traveled abroad with Vargas to Mendoza and with his partner, and with Yáber to Buenos Aires once. I have not traveled abroad with Vivanco either." In that same statement, Ulloa also addressed particular judicial cases about which he was asked, such as the administrative proceeding against judge Daniel Urrutia. In other appearances, he also spoke about cases defended by Vargas and Donoso, cases such as that of Francisco Frei, Sartor, the lifting of immunity of the governor of Valparaíso, Rodrigo Mundaca, among others. "It was complicated to be on bad terms with Vivanco" In the third statement, Ulloa also responded regarding his friendships, particularly about Vivanco and her ex-partner, Gonzalo Migueles. "My relationship with Migueles is exclusively instrumental or accidental to doña Ángela Vivanco. I met him through her and I interacted with him because of her, regardless of the fact that he was a pleasant, nice person whom I liked, but I never went out with him, just the two of us; my relationship was always with doña Ángela and with him," he said regarding the ex-partner of the former magistrate. The subject of Migueles was also addressed during the July 23 statement. On that occasion, Ulloa referred to Migueles's hiring at the Puente Alto Conservator of Real Estate: "I never knew that Ángela Vivanco had asked Sergio to hire her partner, whom Sergio had known from before when he had his agricultural business in the Fifth Region." "At that time, one had no reason to suspect any illicit situation involving Migueles because he was the partner of a very well-known minister and she had always had lawyer partners, so Migueles did not fit the profile of her previous partners. Migueles was very nice, helpful, and submissive with Ángela, but I understand that Sergio felt reverential fear, and it is not easy to work with the partner of a Supreme Court minister. Over time I have realized that Gonzalo Migueles took advantage of the situation doña Ángela had." LUIS QUINTEROS/ATON CHILE Regarding the same, he emphasized that "I don't know if she was aware of what her partner was doing. If Ángela or Gonzalo had spoken with Sergio about Gonzalo's hiring, I would have found it in very poor taste for a Supreme Court minister to have participated in a conversation of that kind, because Ángela and Sergio did not know each other from before, for her to be asking for work for her partner right off the bat. Later I did learn that Sergio had hired Gonzalo Migueles." "Sergio told me that he had hired Gonzalo Migueles as head of human resources. That at first he was very happy with him; he told me that he had performed very well, but then he began to arrive late or simply not go to work (...) When Vivanco's removal took place, I told Sergio that he had no obligation to keep him hired; I told him to evaluate it, especially because he told me that he was failing," Ulloa added. About that situation, he maintained that, "I told him to fire him because he was no longer going to have any obligation to Ángela, with whom there would no longer be any reverential fear. As a friend of Sergio, I can say that he had reverential fear of Ángela, as I also did; in fact, I participated in her talks to avoid having problems with her; it was complicated to be on bad terms with Vivanco." DRAGOMIR YANKOVIC/ATON CHILE Also, in his second statement, he spoke about Vargas. "I met Mario as a public criminal defender; how could I have thought badly of him? The same with Ángela Vivanco; I would never have thought that she could have been involved in something of this magnitude. There was persecution against her person in this country, where women are persecuted more than men. The only reason I can explain that she fell into this is because of her relationship with Gonzalo," he said. The closeness between the minister and the lawyer Vargas was such that Vargas was even going to be the best man at Ulloa's wedding in 2023, a commitment that never came to pass. According to Ulloa himself, that role "demonstrates the close familiarity we have." The celebration In his second statement, the former minister of the Santiago Court also addresses, when asked by the Public Prosecutor's Office, the process of reaching that position, as well as the celebration he held after being appointed minister of the capital's appellate court. The event, which took place at the condominium where Leiva lived in La Dehesa, was attended by several magistrates. "I invited Lamberto Cisternas, who came with his partner; María Teresa Letelier, who also attended, and with whom I had a professional friendship. I also invited Diego Simpertigue with his wife, and he also attended. I also invited Ángela Vivanco and Gonzalo Migueles, who also attended, among others such as Mario Vargas, Samuel Donoso, Rodrigo Ortúzar, Sergio Yáber, Verónica Sabaj, among others," he explained. Dedvi Missene In that regard, he explained some of the invitations. "I invited Mario Vargas because he was an intimate friend of mine, who also helped me during the appointment process because he insisted that I meet with Luis Hermosilla; he made efforts for my appointment." In Hermosilla's case, he said he invited him "because he had recommended me; he had the courtesy of recommending me, although I don't know whether his intervention was or was not what determined my appointment. Although once Hernán Larraín told me that I had been appointed minister of Santiago on my personal merits." "I invited Samuel Donoso for the courtesy of having called me to thank me about his sister, and because I found it kind that he told me I had to come to Santiago to the major leagues. In any case, I did not ask him for help, nor did he offer it when I applied to Santiago," he added. In the same section, the minister was also asked why he invited Vargas, Sabaj, Zaliasnik, Hermosilla, and Donoso to lunch at the Baco restaurant. According to his explanation, and although the meeting did not take place, they were summoned because "all of them in some way urged me to apply as minister of the Santiago Court of Appeals. Verónica also influenced me a lot, because she wanted me to work at the court with her. Samuel made the comment that I was in the major leagues. Vargas, Zaliasnik, and Donoso wanted me to come to Santiago; they recommended that I apply to Santiago or San Miguel." He later elaborated on the incentive for him to join the Santiago Court. According to his statement, "I don't believe Hermosilla had any interest other than an ideological matter, the political position of the government, which is not strange because all governments appoint ministers of their same political position. Hernán Larraín said that the judges were mostly left-wing; political tendency influences a lot. Samuel Donoso, who has a political position different from mine, I think urged me to come to Santiago out of fondness, because Samuel was a nice and pleasant person regarding the matter of his sister. Samuel is quite introverted, not a very sociable person, and he liked me. He had no reason to call me and he did; and that matter interested me for professional reasons." Along with that, Ulloa was also asked about the series of transfers he received, for example, from Yáber. According to his account, he had many expenses and the Puente Alto Conservator offered to help him monthly with 1 million pesos for his daughter's expenses. In addition to that, he maintained that he received deposits from Leiva for debts they mutually held regarding private expenses. In that same statement, he was also consulted about the composition of the panels with Sabaj, as well as — as on the other occasions — about the processing of some particular cases.