The Judiciary has confirmed the
and rejected the appeal filed by his defense seeking his release.
The decision was issued by the Third National Criminal Appeals Chamber, within the framework of an investigation into alleged criminal organization and money laundering.
The Chamber ruled the request to replace pretrial detention with appearance with restrictions unfounded.
Likewise, it determined that the former Junin region governor must continue to face the criminal proceedings under a preventive detention order.
The court held that the serious and well-founded elements of conviction supporting the measure remain in place.
The ruling states: "to declare the appeal unfounded (…) and to uphold the decision in all its aspects."
Defense arguments
The defense argued that new evidence had emerged, including a forensic accounting report allegedly showing the absence of asset–income imbalance, a technical report from the State Attorney General's Office questioning prosecutorial expert reports, and 2020 tax audit reports issued by the National Superintendence of Tax Administration (SUNAT).
In addition, the defense cited dismissals in other proceedings handled in Huancayo province.
Court's reasoning
The judges dismissed these arguments, noting that the accounting report was not new, as it had already been submitted previously.
Regarding the report from the State Attorney's Office, the judges indicated that it is not conclusive. Similarly, they recommended gathering additional information.
They also clarified that the audit conducted by SUNAT covers only the year 2020, whereas the money laundering investigation spans the period from 2008 to 2021.
In addition, regarding the cases shelved in Huancayo, the magistrates explained that they involve different facts, offenses, or time periods.
They added that the current proceedings include a forensic accounting report that was not part of those earlier files.
Final decision
Lastly, the Chamber concluded that the defense's arguments do not undermine the more than 100 elements of evidence linking the defendant to the crimes under investigation.
Therefore, it ruled to uphold the preventive detention order.