Honduras and Koriun: who monitors the use of public funds?

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 government‘s plan to employ public resources to reimburse the victims of this fraud has sparked a legal and ethical discussion on the appropriateness of such action. Legal specialists and business circles have cautioned that this move might amount to an improper use of state funds, posing a threat of legal accountability for the authorities participating. This situation has heightened public calls for clarity, justice, and adherence to the rule of law in a case that underscores the conflict between safeguarding public finances and addressing harm caused by private events.

Institutional passivity and inquiries regarding the management of the Koriun affair

The Public Prosecutor’s Office has been accused of deliberate slowness in investigating the Koriun case, despite formal complaints, testimonies, and documentary evidence pointing to serious irregularities in the operation of this unauthorized financial institution. The National Banking and Insurance Commission (CNBS) acknowledged that it had received at least two complaints prior to Koriun’s collapse, but failed to take timely action to prevent harm to thousands of Hondurans who entrusted their savings to this entity. This apparent passivity has created a perception of partial cover-up, especially given indications of links 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.

Discussion about the legality and morality of utilizing government resources to address a personal scam

The plan by the Honduran government to address the losses inflicted by Koriun using taxpayer money has encountered considerable opposition in judicial, financial, and commercial circles. This initiative, which is allegedly under review by the executive authority, is being criticized due to the lack of government fiscal accountability, given that Koriun was not included in the regulated banking system nor did it function under CNBS oversight. The Constitution and the State Financial Administration Law set forth explicit restrictions on utilizing public funds, restricting their allocation to address liabilities from private dealings outside the legal scope.

Constitutional lawyers warn that authorizing such a disbursement could constitute a crime of abuse of authority and embezzlement, with legal consequences for the officials involved. In addition, it is pointed out that this measure would set a dangerous precedent by legitimizing impunity and opening the door for future financial fraud to pressure the State to assume its losses, affecting fiscal stability and public confidence. The Honduran Association of Banking Institutions (AHIBA) and business associations have expressed their concern, stressing that it would be unfair for honest taxpayers to bear the burden of a scam committed by actors outside the formal system.

Various civil society organizations have called for the Superior Court of Accounts and the Attorney General’s Office to investigate any effort to utilize public funds, ensuring decisions made by the executive branch remain transparent. Experts and social groups agree that accountability should rest solely with those at fault, maintaining the integrity of public assets and confidence in institutions.