_-_copia.jpg?w=800&resize=800,500&ssl=1 "The Koriun case")
The scheme operated by Koriun Inversiones has shaken Honduras during a period of institutional weakness and political division. Impacting over 35,000 individuals, predominantly in working-class regions in the north, the situation has not only highlighted the vulnerabilities of the financial oversight system but has also posed one of the most intricate challenges for Xiomara Castro’s administration.
The unsupervised management and downfall of the plan
For years, Koriun Inversiones operated outside the law, promising monthly returns of 20% without being officially registered or supervised by the National Banking and Insurance Commission (CNBS). Despite public warnings issued by this institution in February 2025, warning that the company was not authorized to raise funds from the public, the operation continued without state intervention until the Technical Agency for Criminal Investigation (ATIC) and the Public Ministry intervened in April of the same year.
Raids revealed the magnitude of the fraud: more than 358 million lempiras in cash were seized, in addition to 69 million frozen in bank accounts. Investigations concluded that there were no real investments to justify the promised returns, confirming that it was an unsustainable pyramid scheme.
Responses from society and political consequences
El efecto del colapso ha sido significativo, tanto en el ámbito social como en el político. Miles de personas perdieron sus ahorros, lo que provocó manifestaciones, bloqueos de carreteras y protestas en varias áreas del país, especialmente en Choloma, donde se encontraban la mayoría de los inversores. La crisis ha intensificado el descontento público con la falta de acción de las autoridades locales y las deficiencias del sistema regulatorio.
Políticamente, el caso ha afectado negativamente la percepción sobre el gobierno. Las críticas se han centrado en la falta de supervisión institucional, la permisividad que permitió a Koriun operar abiertamente y la carencia de medidas preventivas por parte de las agencias responsables. Los sectores empresariales y las organizaciones de la sociedad civil han cuestionado duramente la debilidad del estado para prevenir fraudes de este tipo.
The executive’s plan and the debate
In response to social pressure, the government announced the drafting of a bill to compensate those affected, using resources from the national budget. The initiative, directly ordered by President Xiomara Castro, has generated strong reactions in the National Congress and among the public.
Opposition groups and community organizations have expressed their disapproval of the action, claiming that taxpayer funds are being spent on a private fraud, which they view as a risky precedent that might promote impunity and the misuse of citizens’ distress for political gain. Although the official proclamation has been made, the legislation has not been deeply evaluated, and neither the compensation sum nor the method for its execution has been established.
The suggestion has increased conflicts among legislative groups and put the government in a precarious situation, being criticized for both its lack of anticipation and its crisis management approach.
Institutional risks and political projections
The Koriun case calls into question the Honduran state’s ability to guarantee legal certainty and protect citizens from financial fraud. The lack of timely oversight, the permissiveness with which the company operated, and the government’s delayed response have reinforced the perception of institutional inefficiency.
Internationally, this situation might influence the perception of the country as a secure place for investors, whereas on the domestic front, the management of the case has fueled a storyline of decline that is impacting the ruling party in various areas. Amidst other corruption allegations, the Koriun scandal risks becoming a further representation of insufficient transparency and government oversight.
Xiomara Castro’s government thus faces a complex dilemma: responding to a legitimate social crisis without jeopardizing institutional credibility or exacerbating the climate of polarization. How this situation is handled will be decisive for its political stability and for the level of trust that citizens maintain in public institutions.