The Odebrecht case exposed one of the largest corruption schemes in Latin America. It involved bribery networks, offshore structures and coordinated payments across multiple jurisdictions.

In Peru, the scale of the case posed serious challenges. Investigators had to trace financial flows across borders, identify beneficial owners and coordinate with several authorities at once. Earlier cases provided some experience. But Odebrecht required a more systematic and sustained response.

At the outset, capacity was uneven. Financial investigations were not always integrated into corruption cases. International cooperation – particularly mutual legal assistance – was often reactive and fragmented. Legal tools for asset recovery, including non-conviction based forfeiture, were still being consolidated.

Authorities needed not only to investigate and prosecute corruption, but to build a coordinated strategy able to address its financial dimension and enable sustained cross-border cooperation. This was in a context of political backlash against prosecutorial authorities and significant resource constraints.

From 2015 onwards, the Basel Institute’s International Centre for Asset Recovery (ICAR) supported Peruvian authorities to address the financial and cross-border dimensions of the Odebrecht case. Specialists were embedded within prosecution teams across several jurisdictions. They provided hands-on support in financial analysis and, in some cases, acted as expert witnesses in court.

The support focused on two priorities: strengthening financial investigations and enhancing international cooperation.

In practice, this included:

• Embedding financial investigations into corruption cases so that asset tracing, financial analysis and evidence development progressed alongside criminal proceedings.
• Strengthening prosecutorial and judicial capacity through specialised training on complex financial crime.
• Promoting earlier and more systematic use of mutual legal assistance, both formal and informal, while facilitating direct exchanges between authorities.
• Supporting the application of asset recovery tools, including non-conviction based forfeiture and other confiscation mechanisms.

Over time, ICAR helped translate legal frameworks into operational practice. Investigations became more structured, coordinated and proactive.

Support operated at two levels. It strengthened domestic capacity and improved cooperation across jurisdictions. These approaches were tested and refined in cases involving complex offshore structures and layered financial transactions.

The impact is visible not only in individual cases but also in how corruption is investigated and prosecuted in Peru.

At the judicial level, the approach contributed to major convictions. Former presidents Alejandro Toledo and Ollanta Humala were sentenced to 20 years and 15 years in prison respectively for bribery and illicit campaign financing linked to the Odebrecht scheme. Other senior officials have also been convicted.

These outcomes show that complex corruption cases can be pursued effectively, including across borders.

The most significant change is institutional. Financial investigations are now central to corruption cases. Asset tracing, financial intelligence and evidence analysis have become standard practice.

International cooperation has also evolved. Mutual legal assistance is used earlier and more strategically, with better coordination between jurisdictions.

A key development was the creation of the Unidad de Recuperación Activos en el Extranjero (URAE), an asset recovery unit within the Office of the Attorney General. Established with ICAR’s support, it has contributed to significant asset recovery efforts linked to the Odebrecht case and related proceedings.

More broadly, Peru has shifted from reactive enforcement to a more proactive, financially driven approach. This demonstrates that sustained technical support, combined with institutional commitment, can strengthen both individual cases and long-term capacity.

Peru’s experience with the Odebrecht case has influenced approaches in other jurisdictions, including Ecuador and Colombia, where ICAR has also provided support. Comparable results are beginning to emerge as cases progress.

More broadly, the case reflects a shift in anti-corruption practice – from isolated prosecutions to more integrated strategies that combine legal, financial and cooperative tools. It has also strengthened networks of prosecutors who exchange information and coordinate action, both formally and informally.

Parallel financial investigations and the systematic use of mutual legal assistance are now central to enforcement in Peru and increasingly across the region. However, capacity gaps remain. Economic crime continues to evolve, and new technologies add complexity. At the same time, political and legal backlash against anti-corruption measures remains a challenge.

Ongoing investment in skills, cooperation and effective implementation of frameworks such as the United Nations Convention against Corruption will be essential.