Chilean Court Delivers Landmark Ruling on Massive Salary Overpayment Case
In an extraordinary legal decision that has captured international attention, a Chilean court has ruled that a man who received 330 times his normal salary due to a payroll error can legally keep the substantial windfall after resigning from his position. This unprecedented case, which unfolded in Santiago, Chile, involved a distribution assistant at Consorcio Industrial de Alimentos (CIAL), a major Latin American food processing and marketing corporation.
The Unfolding of an Extraordinary Financial Error
The remarkable sequence of events began in May 2022 when the employee, anticipating his regular monthly salary of approximately 500,000 Chilean pesos (equivalent to about €522), discovered an astonishing deposit of 165,398,851 million Chilean pesos in his bank account. This colossal sum translated to roughly $180,000 or €172,000 – representing 330 times his expected compensation.
According to reports from Diario Financiero, the employee initially demonstrated good faith by informing his employer about the erroneous payment and even promised to visit his bank personally to arrange the refund of the excess amount. However, within a brief period, he reconsidered his position and became unreachable for three consecutive days, failing to report for work during this time.
Strategic Resignation and Legal Battle
After this 72-hour period of absence, the employee submitted a formal resignation letter through his legal representative, effectively terminating his employment while retaining the substantial overpayment. CIAL responded swiftly by filing a criminal complaint for theft, asserting that the employee had no legitimate claim to the mistakenly transferred funds.
What followed was a protracted three-year legal battle during which the worker's defense team maintained a consistent position: there was no theft because the deposit resulted entirely from the company's error without any manipulation or interference from the employee. "There was no deception, fraud or any prior manoeuvre," the lawyers emphasized, arguing that "the deposit was the sole responsibility of the company and that the worker simply received the transfer into his account."
Court's Groundbreaking Decision
In September 2025, the Santiago court delivered its verdict in favor of the former employee. The judges determined that the act did not constitute theft under Chilean law but rather qualified as "unauthorised appropriation" – a distinction with significant legal implications.
The court's reasoning centered on three key factors: the deposit resulted from the company's mistake without employee involvement, there was no provable intention to appropriate the funds, and the employee did not force or manipulate the payment system in any way. Because the case was classified as unauthorized appropriation rather than theft, the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed.
This distinction proved crucial – had the court convicted the employee of theft, he could have faced up to 540 days imprisonment, a permanent criminal record, and mandatory restitution of the funds. Instead, the ruling permitted him to retain what has become a life-changing financial windfall.
Ongoing Legal Implications and Expert Advice
The dispute may not be entirely resolved, however. CIAL has indicated it may pursue civil action to recover the substantial funds. "CIAL will take all legal action available under the regulations, filing an appeal for annulment, so that the ruling can be reviewed," a company spokesperson told Diario Financiero.
Employment law experts emphasize that employees who discover salary overpayments should act promptly and transparently. According to Spanish consultancy Legatik, if more than one year passes without the company seeking repayment, "the employee is no longer legally obliged to return the excess amount under Spanish law." Professionals recommend immediate written notification to payroll or human resources departments when such errors are identified.
For now, the former CIAL distribution assistant remains free to utilize the extraordinary deposit that has dramatically altered his financial circumstances, while this landmark case continues to spark discussions about payroll responsibility, employee rights, and the boundaries between error and appropriation in employment law.
