Peru

Peru and Ecuador join forces against transnational organised crime

The Attorneys General of Peru and Ecuador have signed an agreement establishing a joint investigation team to pursue a major transnational organised crime investigation spanning both countries. Signed on 29 September 2026 in Peru’s Sacred Valley, on the margins of the General Assembly of the Ibero-American Association of Public Prosecutors AIAMP , the agreement culminates a complex bilateral process supported by the Basel Institute on Governance’s International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR . ICAR already provides technical assistance to the investigations in Peru and Ecuador and will continue that support within the joint framework. Why is a joint investigation team needed? It helps solve a simple but increasingly urgent problem. Organised criminal groups can operate across borders as integrated structures, while criminal justice systems remain largely confined within national boundaries. Those boundaries can become barriers to effective prosecution in complex transnational cases. Joint investigation teams help narrow that gap by enabling prosecutors and investigators from different jurisdictions to plan investigative steps, coordinate evidence gathering and develop a common strategy. A high-level commitment to investigate together The agreement was signed during a closed high-level session held alongside the AIAMP meeting, bringing together senior prosecutors and international cooperation officials from both countries. Peru was represented by Attorney General Tomás Gálvez, together with senior prosecutors responsible for international cooperation, organised crime and asset recovery. Ecuador was represented by Acting Attorney General Leonardo Alarcón and the head of the prosecution service’s international affairs office. ICAR’s Latin America team facilitated the session and will continue supporting implementation under its longstanding cooperation frameworks with the prosecution services of both countries. Attorney General Tomás Gálvez emphasised: The agreement is important, but it is only the starting point. What matters now is that the authorities trust each other and work together. These criminal organisations do not respect borders, and neither country can face them alone. We need close and constant cooperation. If we do not act now, violence will continue to grow, citizens will be at greater risk and the State will lose control in places where criminal groups are already trying to impose their own rules. Gálvez also thanked the Basel Institute for its longstanding support and for helping to facilitate and provide technical assistance to the establishment of the joint investigation team. Acting Attorney General Leonardo Alarcón likewise emphasised the importance of sustained institutional backing. Thanking his Peruvian counterparts for their reception, he committed the Ecuadorian prosecution service to supporting an investigation whose scale and cross-border character require close cooperation between the two institutions. Political and institutional support is essential if investigations of this scale are to move forward. We are committed to working closely with our Peruvian colleagues and to ensuring that this case receives the follow-up it requires. Alarcón asked his international cooperation team to maintain close coordination on the case and acknowledged ICAR’s contribution to bringing the two prosecution services together around the new investigative framework. In depth: Joint investigation teams in Latin America Joint investigation teams represent a welcome development in investigative practice, particularly for complex cases that cannot be effectively addressed within the boundaries of a single jurisdiction. Putting them into practice in Latin America, however, is not always straightforward. Unlike Europe, the region has no harmonised legal framework governing their establishment and operation. Each arrangement must therefore be built around the applicable international instruments and the procedural rules of the participating countries. This requires a careful balance. Joint work must respect the powers, procedures and safeguards of each sovereign State while remaining consistent with international standards of cooperation. That balance is not always easy to achieve, but it is particularly important where the seriousness and urgency of the crimes under investigation demand a faster and more integrated response. Challenges around evidence Evidence provides a good example of trying to strike that balance in practice. A joint investigation can make its collection and exchange considerably more direct, but this must be accompanied by clear rules on documentation, chain of custody and procedural safeguards. Evidence gathered jointly must ultimately withstand scrutiny before a court and be capable of resisting challenges by the defence. Otherwise, a criminal trial intended to determine guilt and responsibility risks becoming a lengthy dispute over whether the evidence can be admitted or relied upon at all. Cross-border cooperation under review Procedural regulation of joint investigation teams remains limited in many countries in the region. In addition, the existence of an agreement to investigate jointly does not, by itself, remove the requirements that normally govern international criminal cooperation between sovereign States. Depending on the measure involved, issues such as dual criminality, specialty, judicial authorisation and other procedural safeguards may still need to be satisfied. How these principles apply will have to be assessed case-by-case as the joint investigation develops, particularly where evidence is intended for use before national courts. In Peru, experience from this and other cases has already informed a proposal, technically supported by the Basel Institute, to introduce specific provisions on joint investigation teams into the Criminal Procedure Code, making use of the Attorney General’s power to submit legislative initiatives. The aim is to provide greater legal certainty for future joint investigations while preserving the flexibility that makes the mechanism useful in practice. Asset recovery built into the joint investigation A notable feature of the agreement is that asset recovery is incorporated into the joint investigative framework from the outset. Under the agreement, Peru and Ecuador established a common framework on how to coordinate the identification, tracing, securing and eventual confiscation of assets across both jurisdictions, rather than leaving these questions to a later stage of the investigation. This gives practical effect to a principle widely recognised in organised crime investigations across the region. Disrupting criminal organisations also means targeting the financial structures that sustain them. In a cross-border investigation, a coordinated asset recovery strategy allows authorities to assess, as the case develops, which legal tools available in each jurisdiction offer the best prospect of tracing, securing and ultimately recovering assets. Clear rules can also help them anticipate how measures will be coordinated and how confiscated assets may eventually be disposed of or shared under the applicable legal framework. Broader relevance to asset recovery outcomes in Latin America For ICAR and the wider Basel Institute, this is particularly relevant. Our long-standing work on asset recovery and international cooperation in Latin America provides a strong basis for this more integrated form of support. It also requires closer links with partners that can help address practical challenges arising in joint investigations. The Basel Institute is currently concluding a memorandum of understanding with IberRed aimed at strengthening support for the secure exchange and transfer of information and evidence. These efforts reflect how ICAR combines operational support with applied knowledge drawn from real cases and cooperation processes. Learn more - See the Peruvian Government press release in Spanish : Ministerio Público y Fiscalía General de Ecuador conforman equipo conjunto contra la criminalidad organizada transnacional. - Learn more about the Basel Institute's asset recovery work and current programmes in Latin America.

Peru to reform key asset recovery law with Basel Institute support

Peru’s Attorney General, Tomás Gálvez, has established a multidisciplinary Commission to propose comprehensive reform of the country’s non-conviction based forfeiture framework. The Basel Institute on Governance has been appointed as the Technical Secretariat to the commission, as an extension of our longstanding cooperation with Peru’s Public Prosecutor’s Office Ministerio Público del Perú . Non-conviction based forfeiture – in Peru in the form of extinción de dominio legislation – allows the state to recover assets linked to illicit activity outside of criminal proceedings. By preventing criminal wealth from being hidden, transferred or reinvested, it can strengthen asset recovery and help disrupt the financial foundations of organised crime and corruption. About the Commission Chaired by the Attorney General, the Commission brings together senior prosecutors and representatives of institutions responsible for financial intelligence, law enforcement, asset recovery, taxation and public registries. It will also hear directly from specialised prosecutors, lawyers, judges and academics about the challenges they face and their proposals for reform. The Commission will meet twice a week and aims to produce a legislative proposal within three months. Its broad and inclusive approach is designed to deliver legislation that is both effective and respectful of human rights. Technical assistance for legal reforms Oscar Solórzano, Head of Latin America for the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery, will serve as the Commission’s Technical Secretariat, together with Deputy Head Walther Delgado. This is an important opportunity to support a balanced reform that strengthens Peru’s ability to recover illicit assets while upholding due process, protecting legitimately acquired property and reflecting international standards. These are critical aspects to ensure the law’s legitimacy, as Oscar Solórzano argued in 2024 in a Working Paper: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America. Timeline of Peru’s non-conviction based forfeiture law The journey of Peru’s extinción de dominio framework makes an interesting case study in the development and use of laws designed to help combat corruption and organised crime. The Basel Institute has been closely involved for more than a decade, under programmes of the Swiss SECO-funded Programa GFP Subnacional, whose asset recovery activities are coordinated by Sergio Jiménez Niño, and the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery. The Peruvian experience provides a concrete example of a non-conviction based confiscation system that, following a period of significant implementation, is now undergoing a process of reassessment and adaptation in response to a substantial legal and political backlash framed largely around constitutional guarantees, due process and the protection of fundamental rights. The following timeline provides some insight and sets the context for the debates to come: 2018–2023: Building and testing a specialised system Peru’s current extinción de dominio framework was established by Legislative Decree 1373 in 2018, replacing the previous pérdida de dominio regime with an autonomous, property-based judicial process for recovering assets linked to illicit activity without requiring a prior criminal conviction. A specialised judicial and prosecutorial system was subsequently established across the country. Over the following years, the framework moved from legislation to practice. Prosecutors and judges developed experience, jurisprudence emerged and institutions worked to harmonise criteria. The Basel Institute supported this process through training, technical advice, case-based assistance, international cooperation and the development of reference material such as a two-part Compendium of Jurisprudence on Extinción de Dominio. The team also organised national conventions for specialised prosecutors and judges to harmonise understanding and application of the law across Peru. The system delivered significant results, recovering assets worth well hundreds of millions in US dollars and allowing Peruvian decisions to be recognised and enforced in several cases internationally. But implementation also brought difficult legal and practical questions to the surface, particularly concerning the autonomy of extinción de dominio from criminal proceedings, property rights, temporal application, evidentiary rules and procedural safeguards. 2024–2025: Constitutional scrutiny and legislative change In 2024, a constitutional challenge brought by Peru’s Ombudsman placed central elements of Legislative Decree 1373 before the Constitutional Court. At the same time, Congress was considering substantial legislative changes to the system. The Basel Institute set out technical arguments to inform the discussion, among others in public articles and a series of recorded debates. In May 2025, Law 32326 substantially amended the framework. The changes affected, among other things, the autonomy and scope of extinción de dominio, evidentiary requirements and limitation periods. The Public Prosecutor’s Office subsequently challenged the constitutionality of several of those amendments – a pending case that remains relevant to the current reform process. Then came Judgment 135/2025 of the Constitutional Court. The Court declared parts of the original framework unconstitutional and established binding interpretative criteria on issues including property rights, due process and the relationship between extinción de dominio and criminal proceedings. It ruled, in particular, that Legislative Decree 1373 could only apply to circumstances occurring after its entry into force. Importantly, the judgment did not bring extinción de dominio to an end. It established constitutional limits that the reform must respect, while also leaving room for legislative choices on important aspects of the system. 2026: From successive changes to comprehensive reform This is the legal and institutional landscape inherited by the new Commission. It must consider: - the original architecture of Legislative Decree 1373; - the amendments introduced by Law 32326; - the binding constitutional parameters established by Judgment 135/2025; and - the unresolved constitutional questions concerning the 2025 amendments. Beyond correcting individual provisions of the law, the Commission must grapple with the question: What model of non-conviction based forfeiture should Peru have, taking into account its constitutional framework, international standards and the criminal reality the mechanism is intended to address? Four areas at the heart of the reform The Commission has organised its work around four thematic areas. Each addresses a set of issues that has emerged from the experience of applying the law, the legislative changes and the Constitutional Court’s judgment. 1. Nature, scope and autonomy What should be the purpose and scope of non-conviction based forfeiture? When should it be available, what assets should it cover and how autonomous should it remain from criminal proceedings? The discussion also concerns its relationship with conviction-based confiscation and other asset recovery mechanisms. 2. Temporal application, legal certainty and protection of rights How should the framework address temporal application and limitation periods while protecting property and fair trial rights, bona fide third parties and victims? What consequences should subsequent criminal decisions have for assets already forfeited? 3. Procedure, evidence and due process What rules are needed for financial investigations, interim measures, burdens and standards of proof, rights of defence and judicial review? These questions go directly to how an effective asset recovery mechanism can operate within clear procedural guarantees. 4. Effectiveness International cooperation, enforcement and asset management. A successful system must also work beyond the courtroom. This area covers international cooperation, recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions, early information exchange, execution of confiscation decisions, management and preservation of assets, restitution and asset sharing, and coordination between the institutions involved in the asset recovery process. The Commission is addressing these areas progressively. It began in September by listening to specialised extinción de dominio prosecutors from across Peru about the problems encountered in practice and the effects of the legislative reform and the Constitutional Court judgment. National and international experts are then being invited to examine the different thematic areas before the Commission moves into deliberation and legislative drafting. Value of a multidisciplinary, participatory approach This approach is particularly valuable because many of the questions now being examined in Peru are not new. The autonomy of non-conviction based forfeiture, its relationship with criminal proceedings, retroactivity, property rights, evidentiary standards and due process have historically been among the main grounds on which such systems have been questioned around the world. What makes the Peruvian experience unusual is the possibility of observing these questions in real time. Rather than examining them retrospectively, the Commission can consider how they have arisen in a mature system, listen to those who have applied the law, hear different legal and institutional perspectives and assess possible solutions while the framework itself is being reconsidered. In that sense, Peru provides a particularly interesting opportunity to revisit in practice issues that have accompanied non-conviction based forfeiture internationally for decades. These are also central to the Basel Institute’s Working Paper 54: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America, which examines how effectiveness, human rights, procedural safeguards and international standards can be reconciled in the design and application of these mechanisms. A reform against the clock The Commission is working under an exceptionally demanding timeframe. It has only three months to develop a comprehensive proposal on issues involving constitutional rights, criminal policy and the practical effectiveness of asset recovery. The short deadline reflects a deliberate sense of urgency. After months in which the reform process had largely stalled, Attorney General Tomás Gálvez has decided to use his legislative initiative to move it forward and seek a workable proposal as quickly as possible. Organised crime and illicit economies have not stood still in the meantime, and Peru needs an effective legal framework to target the assets that sustain them. That urgency is also reflected in the way the Commission is working. It meets twice a week, bringing together specialised prosecutors and national and international experts to examine the four thematic areas, test different approaches and progressively build consensus. The methodology requires intensive legal and comparative analysis, but also negotiation between different institutional perspectives within a highly compressed timeframe. The task is difficult precisely because both considerations are real: the urgency of strengthening Peru’s response to organised crime, and the need to ensure that the resulting framework is constitutionally sound, effective and sustainable.

Latin American practitioners join forces against evolving financial crime

Cryptoassets are transforming the work of investigators, prosecutors and asset recovery specialists across Latin America. At a dedicated workshop in Luxembourg, more than 30 practitioners came together to share how they are responding to the challenge – with practical solutions, strong regional leadership and a readiness to learn from one another. The workshop was co-organised by the Basel Institute on Governance and the UK National Crime Agency NCA . It was hosted by Luxembourg’s Bureau de gestion des avoirs as a side event to the 10th Global Conference on Criminal Finances and Cryptoassets. Participants came from prosecution services, police forces, financial intelligence units, supervisory authorities and the judiciary. As members of the Latin America Crypto Community of Practice, they share a determination to confront the rapid growth of cryptoassets and their exploitation by organised crime. Regional leadership in action The workshop placed the region’s own expertise at its centre. Practitioners from Argentina, Brazil, Colombia and Peru presented cases involving cryptoassets and asset recovery. They shared the approaches they had tested, the obstacles they had encountered and the lessons they had learned. The discussions reflected the tremendous effort taking place across Latin America. Practitioners are tackling complex technical, legal and operational questions, often while the risks, technologies and criminal methods continue to evolve. Maria Cordeiro, Senior Specialist, Asset Recovery at the Basel Institute and coordinator of the Latin America Crypto Community of Practice, said: The commitment and creativity of practitioners across Latin America are remarkable. They are not waiting for perfect laws, unlimited resources or ready-made solutions. They are getting to grips with difficult cases, testing practical approaches and helping one another move forward. That passion and leadership are exactly what this community is designed to support. Working through shared challenges Participants worked together on practical challenges related to the seizure, confiscation, custody, management and sale of cryptoassets. The discussions were frank and focused on finding workable solutions. Held in Spanish and under the Chatham House rule, the workshop provided a trusted space in which practitioners could speak openly and learn from their peers. The group also explored ways to strengthen cooperation against organised crime, illicit trafficking and other threats involving cryptoassets. These crimes operate across borders, making strong professional relationships and rapid information exchange essential. The workshop was opened by Oscar Solórzano, Director for Latin America at the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery. Perla, a subject matter expert from the UK National Crime Agency NCA , co-moderated the session. Partnerships and looking forward We thank the NCA for co-organising the workshop under its Illicit Finance programme in Latin America and the Luxembourg Bureau de gestion des avoirs for hosting it so generously. We are also grateful to the NCA, the US Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs INL in Colombia, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru, and the International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program ICITAP in Colombia for funding the participation of practitioners in the workshop and the Global Conference. We also thank current sponsors of our Latin America Crypto Community of Practice for their support for this practitioner-led exchange: Kodex, Asset Reality, Tradias, VerifyVASP, Inca Digital, Coinbase, TRM Labs and CAT Labs. The workshop showed the value of bringing committed practitioners together around real cases and shared challenges. Discussions are already underway about a dedicated Latin America Crypto & Asset Recovery Conference in 2027.

New Norway-backed initiative to strengthen forest integrity

Illegal logging and mining are often enabled by corruption: officials looking the other way for personal gain, companies using their influence to bend or ignore rules, and criminals – along with their profits – being protected. Forests cannot survive if those crimes are allowed to thrive. A new Norway-funded initiative, “Leveraging Partnerships to Tackle Forestry-related Corruption and Crime”, targets the problem at its roots. Under the banner “Together for forest integrity”, the initiative will work with authorities, businesses and civil society, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities in Indonesia and Peru, to tackle the corruption that enables forest crime. It will also turn practical experience from both countries into tools and lessons that can be used elsewhere in the world. Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative NICFI is funding the project, which will last until the end of 2028. The Basel Institute’s Green Corruption programme leads the project consortium with TRAFFIC, Transparency International and WWF. The goal is to disrupt the corruption that drives forest crime, from illegal logging and timber trafficking to illegal mining and fraud linked to carbon markets. By creating obstacles to corruption, the project aims to strengthen forest governance, contributing to the protection of forests and the climate for all. Start with the people who know the problem Effective solutions need both local knowledge and specialist expertise. National and local partners in Indonesia and Peru will help shape the work around the problems they see, the reforms they need and the approaches most likely to last. The consortium will bring technical expertise and experience from different countries and sectors to support locally identified priorities. It will: - work with public authorities, businesses and civil society to identify priority corruption risks and strengthen prevention; - help build capacity to detect, investigate and respond to forestry-related corruption and financial crime; - work with civil society, Indigenous Peoples and local communities to strengthen independent monitoring on forestry-related corruption. Local ownership is central to the approach. The aim is to build systems, skills and tools with the people who will continue using them long after the project ends. Local partners will also help develop knowledge products, so that the programme captures and shares their experience and expertise. Test ideas, then help the good ones travel Indonesia and Peru are strategically important forest countries where corruption linked to logging, mining and other pressures on forests can have major consequences. But the project will also serve as an incubator and a platform to exchange experiences. Some approaches will work better than others. The point is to test them in practice, learn quickly and turn the strongest into useful models for others. With our global reach, the consortium will share practical tools and lessons from Indonesia and Peru, as well as experiences from other parts of the world. We will connect practitioners involved in conservation and anti-corruption, and provide a space for exchange and mutual support to help practitioners learn and adapt effective approaches. The Countering Environmental Corruption Practitioners Forum will help carry that learning further. Launched by the Basel Institute, TRAFFIC, Transparency International and WWF in 2022, the Forum now brings together more than 800 members from the anti-corruption and conservation communities to exchange experience, tools and ideas. The project will also share these experiences in international fora, with the aim of fostering further dialogue and action to address the linkages between corruption and forest threats. Backed by Norway The project brings together Norway’s long-standing commitment to forest protection with the consortium’s anti-corruption, conservation and enforcement expertise, and the knowledge of partners working closest to the problem. We are grateful to the Government of Norway and Norway's International Climate and Forest Initiative NICFI for funding the project and for entrusting the Basel Institute with leading its implementation. Can locally shaped approaches in Indonesia and Peru make it harder for corruption to enable forest crime, and can the best of those approaches work elsewhere too? We believe so, and look forward to working together to show how. Learn more - Interested in the project and wider community? Join the Countering Environmental Corruption Practitioners Forum for free to stay informed and take part in future events and discussions.

Bringing local voices into Peru’s decentralisation debate

How can a country ensure that national policies, budgets and administrative systems respond to realities on the ground – often in local communities and territories far beyond the capital? This question is at the centre of a series of regional policy dialogues taking Peru’s decentralisation debate beyond Lima. Held under the banner “The State in the Territory: New Pathways for Decentralisation” El Estado en el Territorio: nuevas rutas para la descentralización , the dialogues bring regional and local perspectives into the development of national policy proposals for improving decentralised government. The Basel Institute’s Subnational Public Financial Management Programme Programa GFP Subnacional – funded by the Swiss Economic Cooperation since 2015 – is leading the initiative with additional support from the Friedrich Ebert Stiftung. We are happy to partner with three leading Peruvian academic and research institutions: the Institute of Peruvian Studies, Grupo Propuesta Ciudadana GPC and Universidad del Pacífico. The first dialogue took place in the city of Piura in northwestern Peru. Public officials, specialists, academics and civil society representatives held technical discussions on multilevel governance and the coordination of the state’s administrative systems. Why decentralisation needs local voices Decentralisation can bring decision-making closer to people and make public services and investment more responsive to local needs. But transferring responsibilities is not enough. Regional and local governments also need adequate resources, institutional capacity and administrative systems that work across different levels of the state. This is a challenge in many countries. National policies and systems need to provide consistency, while leaving enough room to respond to different regional circumstances. Without that balance, decentralisation can result in fragmented policies and spending rather than more effective government. Listening to people who work with these systems on the ground is therefore essential. Their experience can reveal where national policies support local delivery, where they create obstacles and what could work better. Understanding territorios The word territorio reflects this approach. In Spanish, it means more than a geographical area. It describes the ties between people, institutions and the places in which they live. It also carries political and social meaning. Local identities, inequalities and economic and environmental conditions all affect how people experience the state. In the debate about decentralisation, territorio therefore highlights a desire to gain a ground-up understanding of people’s realities in order to inform state reforms. Concrete outcomes from the Piura dialogue Piura offers an especially relevant setting for the first regional dialogue. Its major infrastructure needs and its experience of climate-related shocks, reconstruction and disaster risk management illustrate the limits of fragmented public action. They also underline the need for stronger coordination across sectors and levels of government. The discussion centred on a policy paper draft by Carlos Vargas, Director of the Basel Institute’s Subnational PFM Programme. It highlighted the need to strengthen coordination across planning, budgeting, public investment, procurement and implementation. Participants also stressed that decentralisation reform should go beyond the transfer of responsibilities across levels of government. A key priority is to ensure that the State’s administrative systems work together more effectively at the local level. This would enable public institutions to respond in a more coordinated and coherent way to local needs and priorities. As Carlos Vargas said: Piura shows that decentralisation is not only about transferring functions, it is about connecting systems, resources and capacities so that public action responds to local priorities and citizens’ needs. How regional experience will inform national policy The contributions from Piura and other regional dialogues in Arequipa, Cusco, Loreto and Lambayeque will inform a revised version of the policy paper and a wider set of recommendations for Peru’s national policy debate. Each dialogue will examine a different aspect of the relationship between decentralisation, public management and territorial development. If decentralisation is to work for people across Peru, regional and local experience must help shape it.

La extinción de dominio en el marco de los estándares e instrumentos internacionales

Preventing corruption in the timber value chain: Risk management experiences in Latin America

La extinción de dominio desde sus principios

The James Stone case: Peru’s fight to recover assets (The Academy Bulletin)

Working Paper 54: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America