Chile moves to strengthen criminal enforcement of industrial property rights

In October 2025, the Chilean Chamber of Deputies received two bills that, if passed, would make the criminal enforcement framework for IP rights under Industrial Property Law No. 19.039 much stronger.

The Citizen Security Committee is now talking about both initiatives in the first constitutional stage. The National Institute of Industrial Property (INAPI) and the Observatory on Illicit Trade and Security of the National Chamber of Commerce have been pushing for these policies as part of a larger effort to stop illegal trade and counterfeiting.

Public criminal action and a more serious crime when public health is at risk

Bulletin No. 17915 25 is the first bill. It would make it possible for the public to take criminal action against crimes against industrial property and create a more serious form of trademark counterfeiting when public health is at risk.

In Chile, criminal prosecution of industrial property crimes is not common today and mostly depends on the right holder’s initiative. If the proposed change goes through, crimes under Law No. 19.039 would be open to public criminal action. This would let the Public Prosecutor’s Office look into and prosecute these crimes on its own, as long as the right conditions are met.

The bill would also add a new last paragraph to Article 28 bis of the IP Law, which is about counterfeiting trademarks. This paragraph states that when the goods that are being counterfeited could be bad for people’s health, it constitutes a specific aggravating factor. Counterfeit medicines, medical devices, cosmetics, and foods that do not meet sanitary standards are some of the most common examples brought up in policy talks. In these situations, courts would have to think about the greater social harm and impose harsher punishments.

This proposal aims to strengthen the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions from the viewpoint of trademark owners, especially in areas where counterfeiting poses a direct threat to consumer safety.

Industrial property crimes as a basis for money laundering

The second bill, Bulletin No. 17912 25, wants to add the crimes listed in Articles 28 and 28 bis of Law No. 19.039 to the list of predicate offenses in Chile’s Anti Money Laundering Law No. 19.913.

In Chile, some serious crimes involving copyright and related rights were already seen as “predicate offenses” for money laundering. The new proposal would put serious violations of industrial property rights, like trademark counterfeiting and other similar actions, at the same level.

There would be a number of legal effects from this change. It would let the Financial Analysis Unit and criminal courts look into and prosecute money laundering that comes from big counterfeiting schemes that involve industrial property rights. It would also make possible to use tools like freezing and taking away assets to profits made from counterfeiting, in line with international standards for organized crime and illegal trade.

How it relates to policy suggestions about illegal trade

The Observatory on Illicit Trade and Security of the National Chamber of Commerce made public policy recommendations for the years 2023 to 2024 that are in line with both bills. The Observatory’s report on 50 ways to fight counterfeiting and illegal trade specifically suggested allowing public criminal action for crimes against industrial property and adding serious trademark counterfeiting to the list of crimes that can be used to launder money. This link makes it clear that the proposed laws are not stand-alone efforts, but rather part of a larger policy strategy to deal with counterfeiting as a public order, public health, and economic security issue, as well as an unfair competition issue.

Possible effects and questions that are still open

If the bills are passed with their current wording, right holders in Chile can expect the Public Prosecutor’s Office to play a bigger and more visible role in enforcement strategies, especially in cases that involve health risks or large-scale counterfeiting networks.

Some practical questions may arise. Some of these are the standards of proof needed to show that fake goods are bad for public health, how industrial property crimes will be ranked among other money laundering crimes, and how INAPI, customs authorities, and criminal prosecutors will work together.

For the global IP community, these changes show that there is a trend toward a stronger connection between enforcing industrial property rights and broader policies against organized crime and illegal trade. They also show how suggestions made in public-private forums, like the Observatory on Illicit Trade and Security, can eventually lead to real legislative proposals.

As the bills move through Congress, people who own rights and work in the field will be closely watching the debates in the Citizen Security Committee and in the plenary. They will do this to figure out what the reforms will mean for IP enforcement strategies in Chile.