Non-conviction based forfeiture

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.

El desmantelamiento de la recuperación de activos en el Perú: Un llamado a la cautela y a la construcción de consensos en torno al Proyecto de Ley 3577-2022

El Basel Institute on Governance, como entidad internacional dedicada a promover la buena gobernanza y a combatir la corrupción, ha seguido de cerca los avances legislativos en materia de recuperación de activos en el Perú y en América Latina. En este sentido, advertimos el importante retroceso que significaría la aprobación del Proyecto de Ley 3577-2022, que busca modificar la Ley de Extinción de Dominio, desnaturalizando su contenido y reduciendo su ámbito de aplicación de manera contraria a la política criminal vigente y a los estándares internacionales que el Perú como Estado está obligado a respetar. Con no poco esfuerzo, el Perú se ha logrado ubicar entre los países más destacados en materia de recuperación de activos en los últimos años, tanto al nivel doméstico como internacional, generando la admiración de la comunidad internacional en esta materia. Testimonio de esto son los números casos internacionales que Perú ha conseguido ganar desde la puesta en marcha del sistema nacional de recuperación de activos. Uno de los factores clave, es sin duda la Extinción de Dominio, una ley regional que permite la recuperación de activos ilícitos, fuera de un proceso penal, cuando un Tribunal reconoce su carácter ilícito. El Proyecto de Ley 3577-2022 significa el desmantelamiento del subsistema de Extinción de dominio por varias razones, entre las principales: Desnaturaliza al instituto jurídico del decomiso sin condena. Al introducir como condición básica para su aplicación una condena penal, el Proyecto vuelve a la actual ley inútil en su aplicación e introduce una contradicción fundamental que carece de lógica y de justificación jurídica aparente. Debilita, entiéndase desmantela en la práctica, el subsistema descentralizado de Extinción de dominio. Desde la adopción de la ley en el 2019, el Perú, con el apoyo de la comunidad internacional y las organizaciones internacionales especializadas en esta materia, ha realizado denodados esfuerzos para crear un subsistema único en la región que implicó la creación de fiscalías, procuradurías y juzgados especializados descentralizados. Lo que inicialmente se concibió como una buena práctica internacional, quedaría sin efecto práctico si se reduce abruptamente el ámbito de aplicación de la ley como pretende hacer el Proyecto de ley. Graves consecuencias reputacionales y económicas para el Perú. Desde la adopción de la Convención de las Naciones Unidas contra la Corrupción CNUCC en el 2003 – pero particularmente desde noviembre del 2023 con la adopción de nuevos estándares globales en materia de recuperación de activos – el decomiso sin condena del cual hace parte la Extinción de Dominio se ha convertido en un estándar internacional. En efecto, las nuevas recomendaciones 4 y 38 del Grupo de Acción Financieras Internacional GAFI , una organización global de lucha contra las finanzas ilícitas, introduce de manera obligatoria la adopción de leyes como la Extinción de dominio en los países miembros. El Proyecto de ley es contrario a la letra y el espíritu de estas recomendaciones y las contradice profundamente. En ese contexto, cabe señalar que el Perú se apresta a pasar la 5ta ronda de evaluaciones del GAFI y es de esperarse que este retroceso legislativo afecte notablemente su performance y, por tanto, los resultados de la evaluación. Las consecuencias de lo anterior, podrían traer consecuencias reputacionales y económicas importante para el Perú. Favorece el desarrollo del crimen organizado y violento en el Perú. Uno de los elementos clave de las leyes de recuperación de activos es la disuasión. La evidencia empírica demuestra que las organizaciones criminales se desarrollan en países que carecen de estas herramientas jurídicas indispensables. Es de esperarse por tanto que el debilitamiento de la ley de Extinción de dominio, tendrá un impacto certero en la expansión del crimen organizado en el Perú, con consecuencias difíciles de estimar. Por los motivos antes esgrimidos, el Basel Institute on Governace hace un llamado a la reflexión y a la búsqueda de consensos en beneficio de la ciudadanía y de la justicia del Perú. En particular, se hace un señalamiento a las autoridades legislativas competentes, las autoridades judiciales, los colegios profesionales y a la sociedad civil organizada de las graves consecuencias que la adopción del Proyecto podría tener en el Perú. Si bien se debe reconocer que en la implementación del subsistema se han podido identificar algunas disfuncionalidades consideramos que la solución debe transitar por otros senderos que los que plantea el Proyecto. Por otro lado, no es inhabitual que la implementación de un sistema tan complejo, que introduce además un cambio paradigmático en las reglas de la justicia, haya generado dudas y reacciones de todas las partes interesadas. Consideramos, sin embargo, que dichas disfuncionalidades emergen en el contexto de la aplicación de la ley y no necesariamente en su concepción o legitimidad jurídica y social, ya que, como se ha dicho, este tipo de leyes constituye un estándar internacional reconocido, incluso por los tribunales internacionales en materia de derechos humanos. Por lo expuesto, consideramos que la aprobación del mencionado proyecto es apresurada y requiere mayor debate, reflexión y la generación de consensos. El Basel Institute on Governance se pone a disposición del Estado peruano para colaborar en este proceso, brindando asistencia técnica y compartiendo nuestra experiencia internacional. Creemos que una reforma integral de la Ley de Extinción de Dominio debe ser una oportunidad para fortalecer el Estado de Derecho y recuperar los activos ilícitos en beneficio de la sociedad peruana. Oscar Solorzano Director del Basel Institute-Perú Más información Descargue este texto PDF . Lea nuestro Working Paper 54: Targeting illicit wealth through non-conviction based forfeiture: Identifying human rights and other standards for Latin America. Lea la Guía de Buenas Prácticas sobre Extinción de Dominio y Decomiso no Basado en Condena y un blog relacionado de Oscar Solórzano. Consulte también nuestra YouTube playlist sobre la recuperación de activos en América Latina.

New GAFILAT guide: Why asset recovery laws need to align with human rights and other international standards

A new guide to non-conviction based forfeiture published by GAFILAT, the Latin American body of the Financial Action Task Force FATF sets out good practices for this powerful but under-used form of asset recovery legislation. It also emphasises the need for laws to align with both domestic constitutions and international human rights standards. The GAFILAT guide was drafted by Oscar Solórzano in collaboration with the region’s Asset Recovery Network RRAG . Oscar is Head of Latin America at the Basel Institute on Governance and a Senior Asset Recovery Specialist with many years of experience supporting government partners across Latin America in high-profile, complex cases of corruption and asset recovery. In this Q&A, he explains the approach, relevance and impact of the Guía de Buenas Prácticas sobre Extinción de Dominio y Decomiso no Basado en Condena , which was published by GAFILAT in 2024 and financed by EU member states through the COPOLAD III cooperation programme. COPOLAD III is a consortium led by the Italo-Latin American Association IILA and FIIAPP of the Spanish Cooperation. 1\. What is the guide about and who is it for? This is a guide to good practices in non-conviction based forfeiture for Latin America. It analyses the existence and implementation of non-conviction based forfeiture mechanisms in the 18 GAFILAT countries, which provided useful data during the drafting process and very detailed comments during the review. The guide contains an analysis of economic criminality in Latin America and the public policy response. It also addresses the essential concepts and standards applicable to non-conviction based forfeiture, presents case studies and explores available data from GAFILAT countries. Policymakers, legislators, law enforcement and judicial practitioners, law students and civil society – including journalists who report on these complex topics – will benefit from the guidance. 2\. Why is there a need for guidance? The expansion of non-conviction based forfeiture legislation has accelerated in Latin America in recent years, and not necessarily in the most coordinated or harmonised way. In line with the updated FATF standards relating to asset recovery, it is expected that it will continue to expand in the region. In effect, the FATF’s updated Recommendations 4 and 38 make the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture laws mandatory and seek to ensure that decisions based on these laws can be enforced internationally. The guide therefore appears at an ideal time. It proposes a way to harmonise this type of law while respecting the legislative diversity that exists in the region. 3\. The idea is that non-conviction based forfeiture can reduce economic and organised crime – even without the threat of criminal convictions. Can you justify that? Economic crimes are perpetrated for the purpose of obtaining illicit economic advantages. Laws that reduce such economic advantages are a concrete step forward. And jurisdictions with more powerful and varied legal tools are more likely to see their crime rates decrease, simply because there is a concrete societal response to the criminal phenomenon. Without comprehensive asset recovery laws and an effective judicial apparatus to implement them, various incentives for engaging in profitable criminal activity arise. Some studies show that the lack of effective legal mechanisms targeting criminal assets has, among other things, allowed an explosion of organised and economic crime in Latin America in all its manifestations. The same goes for the growth of public-sector corruption. Assets stolen through corruption have rarely been confiscated in the past, when asset recovery was only possible in the context of criminal proceedings. It is naïve to think that a legislative instrument alone can change the reality of crime in Latin America, where the most fearsome drug cartels operate and, according to all international indices, corruption is rampant from north to south. However, the empirical experience I have gathered while working for almost 15 years in this part of the world indicates that there is a positive difference in the criminal situation of countries that effectively implement asset recovery mechanisms. A robust legal toolkit for asset recovery also alters the behaviour of criminal organisations, which have to bear higher costs to develop more sophistication in their criminal activities or simply relocate their activity to jurisdictions less equipped with legal tools and the ability to wield them. In Peru, to take a positive example, non-conviction based forfeiture is proving a powerful way to get at numerous politicians who have been accused of corruption, but where criminal proceedings seem to be never-ending. The independence of Peru’s non-conviction based forfeiture law from criminal procedures allows prosecutors to target assets even if their owners inevitably slip through the nets of justice. 4\. What does the guide show about the prevalence and success of different forms of non-conviction based forfeiture in the region? On paper, there has been a lot of progress in the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture in Latin America. Only two countries in the region do not have any form of non-conviction based forfeiture law. The most predominant form is arguably Extinción de dominio, which has existed for 13 years. Ten out of the 18 countries have incorporated it into their legal arsenals and apply it in various forms and degrees. Extinción de dominio is a flexible law that can operate in civil, criminal or administrative matters, or even completely independently. It has developed specific concepts that make it possible to broaden the grounds for asset forfeiture. It lists an extensive catalogue of rights of the defence which, as stated in the Guide, seem to go far beyond the internationally established standard. In practice, however, recovery rates remain modest in relation to the volume of criminal assets generated in and flowing through the region. The best practices guide argues that a lack of effective implementation of existing laws partially explains the poor performance. The quality of implementation is influenced by political, economic and social interests. These are not necessarily addressed in the guide, which limits itself to technical and legal issues. However, the guide proposes some concepts and comparative practices that have the modest objective of guiding national authorities in applying this indispensable tool. 5\. What are success factors and challenges? In many Latin American countries, non-conviction based forfeiture is only taking its first baby steps. But from a Darwinian perspective of law – i.e. survival of the fittest – I observe that the laws that thrive are those that align with international standards and the constitutional rights of the countries that adopt them. In other words, those laws that develop around recognised global standards and practices but that are also designed to work in specific local contexts. Since 2020, together with my colleagues and many passionate and competent local partners, I have implemented programmes promoting non-conviction based forfeiture laws in the region. That experience has helped me to see that there is a group of countries that have what we can call a “European” approach to the issue, and whose laws apply only in a narrow set of scenarios. Others have more hard-hitting practices that evoke the laws used in countries such as the United States, and have transposed common law practices and principles into civil law frameworks without further reflection. Despite an increase in asset recovery rates, in many cases this has led to distortions and challenges, which are partially explored in the guide. 6\. What does the guide tell us about non-conviction based forfeiture in international cases? International asset recovery is a very different animal from domestic asset recovery and has political implications. That said, since 2014 several Latin American countries have tried to pierce the once impenetrable veil of the European financial system with non-conviction based forfeiture procedures. Switzerland and then Luxembourg were the first European countries to accept these laws as valid, in particular in relation to decisions based on Extinción de dominio. Today, almost all countries accept provisional measures based on these laws and some can directly enforce the resulting decisions. Even if the practice of enforcing non-conviction based forfeiture judgments is not abundant, we hope that the new standards adopted by the FATF on this matter will help to accelerate international asset recovery. 7\. The guide emphasises the need to align laws with international human rights standards. Why? In my opinion, this is fundamental. It is inconceivable that the ideals of justice can be achieved to the detriment of human rights. Rather than a random matter left to the discretion of states, respecting human rights in the adoption of non-conviction based forfeiture laws is an international treaty obligation. Most countries adhere to the so-called control of conventionality doctrine, i.e. the obligation to align any domestic legal instrument or practice with binding rules arising from international treaties such as the American Convention of Human Rights. This presupposes that the adoption of any domestic rule and practice on non-conviction based forfeiture must respect human rights and the practice of human rights courts. This is a condition sine qua non of any asset recovery law. The guide cites two examples of setbacks to the use of non-conviction based forfeiture laws in the region on the basis of human rights deficits. We can agree or disagree with the premises used by the countries’ High Courts to reach their conclusions. But what is clear is that a lack of consideration for human rights can also play a paralysing role. This challenge is vividly illustrated in Peru right now, where the Ombudsman has filed a claim against the use of non-conviction based forfeiture with the Constitutional Tribunal on the grounds that it could violate the right to property and the principle of the presumption of innocence. On a more positive note, a human rights lens can enhance the application of this type of law, especially in the context of international cooperation. On the one hand, more attention to human rights brings more legitimacy and acceptance to laws and therefore better recovery rates. On the other hand, a human rights lens also offers national legislators the ability to adopt more incisive standards when there are, for example, elements of organised crime or other exceptional conditions that make the application of some human rights more flexible. 8\. How does the guide help navigate the human rights topic in practice? As the guide explains through a study of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the issue is constantly evolving. The guide provides Latin American legislators and practitioners with examples of how to develop the human rights approach in a clearer way and enables them to critically review concrete non-conviction based forfeiture cases in various parts of the world. It emphasises two human rights that are central to non-conviction based forfeiture: the right to property and the right to a fair trial. This will be enormously beneficial in ensuring that new or revised non-conviction based forfeiture laws in Latin America are in line with the updated FATF Recommendations. The guide advocates for the adoption of laws that are in harmony with human rights principles and specifies that their international enforcement is a recognised standard. Similarly, the interpretative notes to the revised FATF Recommendations 4 and 38 – and the very coherence of the FATF system – indicate that the respect for human rights is fundamental to the adoption and application of these laws. The human rights perspective is likely to be an important element in the forthcoming fifth round of FATF Mutual Evaluations in GAFILAT countries, where the technical compliance and effectiveness of these laws with FATF standards will be under the microscope. Learn more See the Guía de Buenas Prácticas sobre Extinción de Dominio y Decomiso no Basado en Condena . Read a related blog by Oscar Solórzano: FATF seeks to change the landscape of international asset recovery: what this means for Latin America.

New funding agreement strengthens asset recovery efforts in Mozambique

The Basel Institute's technical assistance to the Prosecutor General’s Office in Mozambique will now continue through 2027, thanks to a second-phase agreement with the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation SDC , Mozambique office. Since 2018, our locally based team has been helping to build the capacity of the Prosecutor General's Office to investigate and prosecute corruption and related financial crimes, as well as to recover stolen assets. Training support was extended to the country’s Criminal Police in 2022. The programme is primarily funded by SDC and is implemented through our International Centre for Asset Recovery ICAR , which also benefits from core funding from the Governments of Jersey, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland and the UK. The key priorities of the programme are targeted training and mentoring; support with civil confiscation legislation; and institutional development. Phase one achievements: strengthened investigation capacity and legislative framework The most significant achievements of the first phase of the intervention 2019–2023 include the strengthened financial investigation capacity embodied by the Central Asset Recovery Office GCRA , an entity created and made operational during the programme period. The country also made significant progress in legislative and policy reform, including the introduction of an extended forfeiture regime, a new law to strengthen the country’s AML/CFT framework and improvements to the country’s penal and penal procedural codes. Draft civil confiscation legislation is currently with the Council of Ministers for submission to Parliament. Once adopted, Mozambique will be the first Portuguese-speaking country in the world to have civil confiscation legislation. ICAR experts also delivered training to over 1,500 prosecutors, criminal investigators, financial investigators and judges on topics related to anti-money laundering, corruption, extended asset forfeiture, international cooperation, asset recovery and criminal investigation techniques. Phase two priorities: targeted training and institutional development The second phase of the programme will focus on three main areas: Continuing our collaboration with Mozambique's authorities to enhance the legal and institutional framework for anti-corruption, financial and economic crime and asset recovery, including supporting them with the approval and implementation of the civil confiscation law. Continuing our contribution to institutional strengthening by advising on the creation of further specialised entities within the Prosecutor General’s Office, and providing support the Asset Recovery Unit. Enhancing the skills of the staff of anti-corruption institutions, especially prosecutors and criminal investigators, both at the national and provincial levels. Through specialised training and on-the-job mentoring we will improve capacity for the investigation and prosecution of corruption, financial crime and asset recovery, including financial investigations and mutual legal assistance, with an emphasis on provinces where such types of crime are concentrated. Contributing to an environment that deters corruption Our intervention is part of a wider SDC-funded anti-corruption programme that seeks to reduce the political, economic and social costs of corruption on development for Mozambique by creating an environment that deters engagement in corrupt practices by public servants, office holders, private companies and citizens. Other partners include the Ministry of Economy and Finance, UNODC and the Centro de Integridade Pública. Our ICAR team is assisting with coordination of the consortium in the new phase. “The Asset Recovery and Management Offices and the strengthening of anti-corruption legislation are among the achievements of the first phase of the programme, and we commend the staff of the Prosecutor General's Office, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, ICAR and UNODC experts for their work. We expect that the second phase will continue to improve the legislation on international legal and judicial cooperation in the fight against corruption, including through the adoption of the Law on Civil Forfeiture. We hope that the programme will also continue to improve the quality of criminal, financial and asset investigations.” – Ilaria Dali-Bernasconi, Head of Cooperation, Embassy of Switzerland in Mozambique “The results presented here underline the undeniable contribution of the cooperation and support programme to strengthening Mozambique's capacity to combat corruption and economic and financial crime and recover assets. From the creation of the Central Asset Recovery Office GCRA to the training of its staff... We praise the efforts made by the \ ICAR\ team… that culminated in the approval by Parliament of the Asset Recovery Law. The results show the fulfilment of the agreement's objectives, the gains the country has made in the fight against corruption, which contributes to the country's development, the respect and integrity of the state and the well-being of our people.” – Alberto Paulo, Deputy Public Prosecutor General of Mozambique Learn more Download a flyer about the programme

The Quispe Callo case: Peru’s provincial prosecutors recover corrupt assets through non-conviction based confiscation

Authorities in Cusco in southeast Peru have succeeded in recovering a house and land linked to acts of corruption by the former mayor of the province of Canchis, using a recently introduced non-conviction based forfeiture law. Specialised Prosecutors working with asset recovery specialists of the Programa GFP Subnacional were able to prove that land was purchased, and the house built, with proceeds of corruption. The assets were confiscated under Peru’s law of Extinción de Dominio , a form of non-conviction based confiscation law targeting illicit assets separately from criminal proceedings. The judgment under the Extinción de Dominio law is the first obtained by Peruvian authorities at the subnational level with the support of the Programa GFP or Subnational Public Finance Management Programme of the Swiss SECO Cooperation in Peru, implemented by the Basel Institute on Governance. Corruption doesn’t pay The successful recovery of the assets demonstrates – to corrupt officials as well as to citizens – that corruption does not pay. It also indicates the value of having a robust non-conviction based confiscation law and system at the subnational level. While criminal proceedings against the mayor are ongoing, they typically take much longer to complete than non-conviction based proceedings, which use a lower civil standard of proof. In the meantime, valuable assets such as the corruptly obtained land and house cannot be recovered, and even have to be managed and maintained to avoid a depreciation in value. The Basel Institute supported the Peruvian authorities in the drafting and enactment of the law in 2018, as well its implementation since then via a national “subsystem” of specialised courts, tribunals and prosecutors’ offices. As well as targeted capacity building and case-based mentoring, our team has organised peer learning events such as major two-day convention of judges specialised in the use of this law. In the prosecutor’s words Dr. Sergio Jiménez, who leads the team responsible for asset recovery assistance at the subnational level under the long-running programme, spoke to Dr. Yolanda Inquiltupa Calvo about the significance of the "Quispe Callo", named after the former mayor Jorge Quispe Callo. Dr. Inquiltupa Calvo is Provincial Prosecutor for Extinción de Dominio in Cusco. Read or watch the original interview in Spanish. Dr. Inquiltupa, the Extinción de Dominio law came into force five years ago. How important is this tool for Peru in general and for Cusco in particular? Very important. Reality has taught us that criminals are not deterred by the prospect of a conviction. It is not a problem for them to go to prison if they can get out and still enjoy the assets they have acquired illicitly. This is where non-conviction based confiscation comes into play. Through a judicial process that takes place in court, we are able to confiscate assets that have been acquired with proceeds of crime. We can also confiscate assets that were used to facilitate the commission of crimes. The assets are being returned to the public treasury for the benefit of citizens. Why is the decision in the Quispe Callo case important and what message do you think it sends out? This ruling is very special. We launched the Extinción de Dominio case after learning of a police investigation into the former mayor Quispe Callo together with other public officials. We were then able to identify assets that he had acquired, both himself and also jointly with his partner. In the ruling, it was established that not only had the land been acquired with funds arising from public-sector corruption, but also the construction of the house itself. The total value was approximately PEN 350,000 just under USD 100,000 . Can you tell us about your collaboration with the Basel Institute’s asset recovery specialists in this case? For us, as an asset recovery office, the support provided by the Basel Institute on Governance through the Programa GFP Subnacional is very important. First, for the technical assistance related to specific cases. Second, for the more general assistance in improving our effectiveness and productivity. In this case, the team supported us in the analysis of the case, in the review of the evidence and in the coordination required to gather more information. As a result, we were able to jointly draw up a very well prepared action plan that allowed us to identify the illicit assets and launch proceedings to confiscate them. In your opinion, what can we look forward to in terms of asset recovery through Extinción de Dominio and what does it mean for the targeting of criminal behaviour? I foresee a very promising outlook for Peru in terms of asset recovery. This is not only because of the progress we have made at the provincial level here in Cusco. At the national level, where the law is being used by different entities of the Peruvian system, asset recovery is advancing by leaps and bounds. I understand that we have more than 600 judgments at the national level, and we have already recovered assets in excess of USD 60 million through this law alone. Where nothing was happening before, now we are finally seeing progress. What we are trying to achieve with this is to bring about a change in thinking – a change in the perceptions of citizens around crime and corruption. The general perception is that crime is lucrative. We want to reverse that, so that citizens know that crime does not pay. Learn more Learn more about the Programa GFP Subnacional in Spanish or English. Learn more about the work of our International Centre for Asset Recovery

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

Case Study 13: The Beauty Queen case: non-conviction based forfeiture across borders

Policy Brief 16: Enforcing foreign non-conviction based forfeiture orders

Quick Guide 42: Non-conviction based confiscation

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