1. What is the current legal landscape for White Collar Crime in your jurisdiction?

In Peru, the term “white-collar crime” is used to refer to offenses committed in professional, corporate, economic, or positions-of-power contexts, by individuals occupying a particular position or acting within a specific activity or organizational structure. These offenses typically arise in environments involving access to information, financial resources, corporate structures, or positions of trust, and may be carried out through apparently lawful transactions, contracts, transfers of assets, administrative decisions, corporate structures, or financial mechanisms. Their investigation is often complex, as the unlawful conduct may involve multiple individuals, numerous documents and transactions, and different levels of decision-making, among other factors.

Against this backdrop, a broad range of offenses protecting different legally protected interests may be considered white-collar crimes and are therefore addressed under different titles of the Criminal Code or under special legislation. These include corruption of public officials, offenses against the public administration, money laundering, fraud and fraudulent schemes, tax offenses, customs offenses, corporate offenses, offenses against the financial system, securities-market offenses, environmental crimes, illegal mining, private-sector corruption, cybercrime, among others.

White-collar crime is therefore addressed across various provisions of the Criminal Code and special legislation. Accordingly, it must be approached considering the general provisions of the Criminal Code as well as the specific criminal, financial, corporate, tax, customs, and environmental regulations, among others.

The State’s response to this type of crime involves the interaction of various government authorities. These include Congress, which enacts legislation and defines criminal offenses; the Judiciary, which applies those provisions; and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which conducts investigations together with the National Police. Various administrative authorities also contribute to combating these offenses, including SUNAT (National Superintendency of Customs and Tax Administration), SBS (Superintendency of Banking, Insurance and Private Pension Fund Administrators), INDECOPI (National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property), ANA (National Water Authority), the UIF (Financial Intelligence Unit), SMV (Superintendency of the Securities Market), and the Office of the Comptroller General, among others.

The evolution of the State’s response to white-collar crime is reflected in a number of developments, including: (i) the creation of new offenses, ranging from the incorporation of new provisions and the expansion of the scope of money laundering offenses to the criminalization of offenses such as private-sector corruption; (ii) the determination of the individuals who may be held criminally liable, requiring an analysis of perpetration, participation, the duty to act, particularly within hierarchical structures; (iii) the liability of legal entities in criminal investigations, for which a specific administrative liability regime applicable within criminal proceedings has been established, initially in relation to transnational active bribery and subsequently extended to other offenses; and (iv) criminal compliance, or the crime-prevention model, tailored to the nature, risks, and characteristics of the corporation. Such models make it possible to assess whether a company has adequate mechanisms to prevent criminal conduct, whether effective and efficient controls are in place, and whether senior management is aware of certain practices, among other matters.

These offenses involve complex structures and evidentiary issues and are often carried out through commercial transactions supported by documentation—with contracts—and involving duly incorporated companies, thereby creating an appearance of legality. Accordingly, procedural measures are available to facilitate their investigation and the gathering of evidence, including the lifting of bank secrecy, tax confidentiality, and the confidentiality of communications; financial analysis; forensic accounting; transaction tracing; corporate information; communications records; the seizure of documents; international cooperation; effective collaboration; seizures; forfeiture; and asset investigations.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in White Collar Crime matters?

● Assess the legal situation and develop a defence strategy. Clients should seek advice from a specialized criminal defence attorney at the earliest opportunity. They should not make decisions, submit documents, or provide statements before analysing the matter with a specialist attorney. It is always preferable to understand the documentation contained in the investigation before taking a position, establishing a chronology of events, etc. It is also necessary to assess how to respond to the allegations, including whether to challenge them or whether it may be advisable to explore an early resolution mechanism.

● Do not destroy, alter, or conceal information. Preserve emails, contracts, accounting records, documents, and relevant devices, without tampering with evidence or obstructing the investigation. One of the grounds considered when ordering pretrial detention is the risk of flight or the risk of obstructing the gathering of evidence. The destruction, alteration, or concealment of documents may therefore be regarded as an act of obstruction. Concealing a document is not the same as simply declining to submit it; accordingly, any material that is submitted should first be reviewed by counsel. Clients should likewise avoid making improvised statements, answering questions, filing submissions, transferring assets, or wiping or otherwise “digitally” cleaning devices. The first step should always be to contact counsel so that the case can be assessed from a legal perspective and an appropriate strategy developed based on the available evidence.

● Assess whether a benefit mechanism may be available. Where objective evidence indicates potential criminal liability, the timely acknowledgment of certain facts may constitute a legitimate defence strategy. In such cases, counsel should assess whether mechanisms such as early termination of proceedings, early conclusion of proceedings, or, where applicable, effective collaboration may be appropriate. The evidence should be assessed objectively to determine whether a strategy involving acknowledgment of facts, reparation, and collaboration is appropriate. Such an approach may reduce the potential sentence within the framework of the statutory benefit mechanisms available under Peruvian law. Any decision of this nature must be tailored to the individual circumstances of the client and based on a comprehensive assessment of the legal risks and benefits of each option. Throughout the process, the client’s fundamental rights must be fully protected, with due process and confidentiality remaining key components of the defence strategy.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in White Collar Crime law in your jurisdiction in the next 12 months?

One of the main opportunities lies in the need to implement and the growing importance of crime-prevention models as part of corporate compliance and risk management. For reasons of strategic diligence or to avoid potential consequences in administrative proceedings or criminal investigations, corporations are increasingly recognizing the need to implement an effective crime-prevention system. This places them in a position to contribute to the fight against white-collar crime, which can also be beneficial to the companies themselves. Some companies are legally required to have a prevention system, while for others such a system may prove valuable if the company becomes involved in a criminal proceeding or investigation concerning one of its employees in connection with these offenses. What is clear is that having an effective prevention system is always a positive factor.

These systems may be reviewed by the SMV (Superintendency of the Securities Market), which is responsible for determining the effectiveness and efficiency of a prevention system or model—that is, determining whether the system actually works. Accordingly, there is an opportunity to provide the SMV with the tools and resources necessary, together with qualified personnel, to assess the effectiveness of prevention systems and establish guidelines or criteria that can be applied by all those involved.

This is also an opportunity for formally established corporations to understand that they must continuously identify the risks inherent in their business activities, monitor them, implement controls and approval procedures, provide training, establish reporting channels, implement internal investigation procedures, among other measures. Only in this way can companies achieve effective control aimed at preventing criminal conduct.

White-collar crime encompasses a wide range of offenses, and new forms of criminal conduct continue to emerge. Corporations are therefore expected to continuously monitor their risk areas, the personnel operating within them, the functions they perform, their level of knowledge and technical expertise, and their interactions with other individuals and corporations, government entities, public officials, and others. Many transactions are now conducted through cryptocurrencies, exchanges, and wallets. Companies must therefore establish appropriate procedures and controls that can evolve over time and constitute an effective prevention model, ensure that such model is properly communicated to employees, and foster a corporate culture aimed at preventing criminal conduct.

The complexity of white-collar crime investigations has led to greater specialization and expertise among both investigators and defence counsel. We view this as an opportunity for continuous improvement, although it can also become a threat to the effectiveness of investigations if the relevant institutions fail to maintain qualified personnel or allocate adequate resources—for example, for the preparation of specialized expert reports within reasonable timeframes and supported by sound scientific methodology. It is particularly important for investigative authorities to maintain principled, specialized, and technically qualified personnel, given that these are complex investigations that typically involve numerous issues requiring analysis. This also has implications for protecting the rights of both victims and persons under investigation. In practice, criminal complaints against businesspeople for alleged white-collar offenses are frequently filed without sufficient evidentiary support and for purposes of damaging their commercial reputation. It is therefore the responsibility of prosecutors, judges, and police officers, through objective and technically sound work, to determine whether there are sufficient grounds to establish that a criminal offense has been committed.

White-collar crime—including illegal mining, corruption of public officials, money laundering, and tax fraud—generates substantial amounts of money, which poses a systemic threat because it can foster corruption and impunity.

There have also been concrete threats to the system for combating white-collar crime arising from Congress, through the enactment of legislation that has undermine efforts to combat corruption, money laundering, illegal mining, organized crime, and other offenses. The constitutional framework governing criminal offenses, as well as the principles of legality, statutory definition of offenses, evidentiary requirements, and others, must be respected. We refer to what have been described as “pro-crime laws”. These include Law No. 32108, which amended the regulation of organized crime; Law No. 32130, which amended the Code of Criminal Procedure and redefined the respective roles of the National Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office in preliminary investigations; and Law No. 32326, which amended the asset-forfeiture regime, among others. These laws have, to some extent, affected criminal investigations.

Given that a significant portion of the current political class consists of the same individuals who supported these laws, we consider that a threat to the system for combating organized crime also comes from within our own institutions.

The current landscape therefore has two dimensions. On the one hand, there are legal provisions and institutional conditions that can strengthen the fight against white-collar crime, both from a procedural perspective and through greater specialization in criminal investigations. On the other hand, in recent years, legislation has been enacted that has undermined efforts to combat organized crime and has weakened the system.

Business owners and executives at every level need to become actively engaged in the fight against crime. This commitment should be reflected in the prevention model implemented by their organizations, its effectiveness, and the measures they take to minimize the risks of these offenses being committed.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

We focus on addressing our clients’ criminal and procedural legal matters promptly, with a high level of professionalism and technical legal expertise in both procedural and substantive matters. Client satisfaction is not determined solely by the outcome achieved, but also by an approach based on diligence, continuous communication, and a comprehensive, team-based analysis of each case. When high-quality legal services are provided and the client is kept continuously informed about what is and is not taking place during the investigation, the outcome itself becomes less significant in determining the client’s level of satisfaction. A client may obtain an unfavorable outcome and nevertheless be highly satisfied with the work performed by their counsel. Conversely, a favorable outcome does not necessarily mean that the client will be satisfied.

Every client is different and therefore values things differently. It is essential to understand the client’s objectives, the outcome they expect, the risks they need to avoid, the level of information they require, and their preferred means of communication, among other aspects, always within a framework of high-quality and professional legal service. Accordingly, effective client service does not depend solely on the final outcome of the proceedings, but also on the quality of the support and guidance provided throughout the entire process.

For this reason, we believe that the key to maintaining client satisfaction lies in timely attention and ongoing communication. We maintain close and continuous communication with our clients, keeping them promptly informed of developments in their cases, relevant decisions, and the strategy adopted. It is essential to respond promptly to a client’s questions or calls and to maintain regular communication. When this is combined with professional, high-quality legal representation grounded in transparency and ethics, it is highly likely to result in a satisfied client. By transparency, we also mean providing complete clarity regarding the fees charged for the services provided.

Another factor that we believe contributes to client satisfaction is having a team of attorneys specialized in criminal and criminal procedural law, with experience both in private practice and within the administration of justice. The exchange of experience and perspectives within the team enables us to understand matters more comprehensively, taking into account different perspectives: that of the client, that of a strictly legal analysis, and that derived from practical knowledge of how the justice system operates.
In this way, we seek to ensure that each client receives personalized, responsible, and technically sound legal service, based on trust, transparency, and an ongoing commitment to protecting and advancing their interests.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping your practice area and how can clients benefit from them?

Technological advances are transforming criminal and criminal procedural law from both an operational perspective—including procedures, organization, and case management—and a substantive perspective, by contributing to the emergence of new criminal offenses.

Artificial intelligence is having an increasingly significant impact across all areas of legal practice, including criminal and criminal procedural law. It assists with tasks such as information retrieval through keyword searches, real-time transcription, case-law research, and various forms of analysis, including the preparation of summaries and chronologies and the comparison of different versions of events, among others. By reducing the amount of time attorneys need to devote to these tasks, such tools enable them to dedicate more time and effort to developing and implementing case strategy.

From an investigative perspective, technological advances have also transformed the way certain investigations are conducted. Investigators now have access to highly precise tools and equipment that enable more sophisticated forensic analysis, they have mobile phones, computers, tablets, servers, recording devices, cameras, cloud services, drones, and other sources. Technological advances have likewise increased the precision of technical, accounting, economic, financial, forensic handwriting, audio, geolocation, biological, chemical, physical, and anthropometric examinations, among others.

New methods are also available for obtaining, processing, preserving, and examining large volumes of information from electronic devices, communications, and digital files. These processes can now be carried out more rapidly and systematically.

Technological advances have also transformed the nature of criminal activity by contributing to the emergence of new offenses. Online purchases, virtual banking transactions, use of digital wallets, virtual payment methods, and similar technologies have contributed in recent years to the development of cybercrime, which has been increasing in Peru year after year.

Telecommunications companies, banks, payment-service providers, and retailers are therefore working to strengthen the security of their information systems in order to mitigate the risk of such offenses, including computer fraud, identity theft, and unauthorized access, among others.

For our clients, technological advances translate into a greater capacity to organize and analyze information, identify risks at an earlier stage, and develop defense strategies based on a more comprehensive analysis of the available evidence. It is important to emphasize that technology is a support tool and can never replace an attorney’s legal analysis and professional judgment. The interpretation of evidence, the determination of case strategy, and decision-making ultimately depend exclusively on the attorney’s experience and specialized analysis.

6. Describe a particularly interesting or complex matter you have advised on recently, and explain the challenges involved, your approach, and the outcome achieved for the client?

In line with the subject matter addressed in this questionnaire, namely white-collar crime, we recently advised a company that became involved in a criminal investigation for money laundering. The company was requested to provide information dating back to 2005 for the purposes of a forensic accounting examination. The main challenge in the matter was gathering historical information regarding the company’s commercial activities and transactions.

In addition, certain information had been deleted over the passage of time.
In view of these circumstances, we submitted to the Public Prosecutor’s Office a crime-prevention model that had been implemented recently, in 2021, through which the company demonstrated that it had acted diligently and had taken appropriate measures to prevent money laundering.

Although the prevention model was not referred to the SMV, as the authority responsible for assessing the effectiveness of such systems, the Public Prosecutor’s Office independently reviewed the model and concluded that the company had allocated resources and undertaken efforts to ensure that its activities were conducted diligently and lawfully. As a result, both the company and its representatives were excluded from the criminal investigation.