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.