{"text_format":"2","workbook":"xlsx","n_sheets":2,"sheets":["Coversheet","Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio"],"not_rendered":{"charts":0,"images":1,"macros":0,"external_links":0,"defined_names":0,"comments":0,"pivot_tables":0},"unopened":[],"bounds":{"document_bytes":16777216,"sheet_cells":100000,"run_cost":"one","rows_first":2000,"rows_last":500,"rows_between":2000,"halvings":0,"cell_chars":16384,"cell_head_chars":4096},"cells_cut":0,"cells_raw":0,"read":"whole","date_system":"1900"}

{"sheet":"Coversheet","index":0,"n_rows":12,"n_cols":3,"rows_kept":12,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
[]
[]
[null,"Prepared By:","Contributors:"]
[null,"Estudio Olaechea","Diego Abeo"]
[]
[]
[]
["Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruption Compliance Guide"]
[]
["Report Generated: 11/19/2025"]
[]
["View your report results on next tab"]

{"sheet":"Lex Mundi Global Anti-Corruptio","index":1,"n_rows":13,"n_cols":2,"rows_kept":13,"cut":false,"hidden":false,"merged":[]}
["Question","Peru"]
["Anti-Corruption Compliance"]
["What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?"," The main anti-corruption law in Peru is the Peruvian Criminal Code , specifically sections 384° through 401° . The unlawful acts covered under the legislation are: \n\n \n\t Collusion ( section 384° ) - Punishes a public official who conspires with an interested party to defraud the State or State entity or agency by intervening directly or indirectly in any stage of a public tender process, because of his/her position. \n\t Embezzlement ( section 387° ) - Punishes the public official who appropriates or uses, in any form, for him/herself or for another, wealth or effects whose perception, administration or custody, is entrusted to him because of his/her position. \n\t Passive Proper Bribery ( section 393° ) - Punishes a public official who receives or accepts any kind of benefit in order to carry out or omit any act in violation of his/her function or duties; \n\t International Passive Bribery ( section 393°-A ) - Punishes the public official from another state or international public organization who receives, requests, accepts, directly or indirectly any kind of benefit  to carry out or omit an act of his/her functions or duties; \n\t Improper Passive Bribery ( section 394° ) -  Punishes a public official that accepts, receives or requests any other kind of illegal benefit to carry out an act that is within his/her functions without  failing to fulfill his/her duties; \n\t Specific Passive Bribery ( section 395° ) - Applies to a Judge, Arbitrator, Expert or Member of an Administrative Court that accepts, receives or requests any kind of illegal benefit that is offered to influence a matter under his/her consideration; \n\t Passive Proper Bribery in the Police Function ( section 395°-A ) - Punishes a police officer that accepts, receives or requests an illegal benefit in order to carry out or omit any act in violation of his/her duties; \n\t Passive Improper Bribery in the police function ( section 395°-B ) - Punishes a police officer that accepts, receives or requests an illegal benefit in order to carry out or omit an act without failing to perform his/her duties; \n\t Passive corruption of Jurisdictional Auxiliaries. ( section 396° ) - Punishes a judicial secretary, specialist or jurisdictional auxiliary that carries out the conduct prohibited under section 395°; \n\t Generic Active Bribery ( section 397° ).- Punishes an individual who offers, delivers or promises a public official any kind of illegal benefit in order to get him/her to carry out or omit acts in violation of his/her function or duties; \n\t Active Transnational or International Bribery ( section 397º-A ) - Punishes an individual who offers, delivers or promises a public official from another State money or any kind of economic profit to carry out or omit acts in violation of his/her function or duties or without failing to fulfill his/her duties in order to obtain or retain a business or unlawful profit \n\t Specific Active Bribery ( section 398° ) - Punishes an individual who, under any modality, offers, gives or promises an advantage or benefit to a Judge, Prosecutor, Expert, Arbitrator, or Member of the Administrative Court in order to influence their decisions; \n\t Active Bribery of Police Officer ( section 398°-A ) - Punishes an individual who, under any modality, offers, gives or promises a member of the National Police a donation or any benefit to do or omit acts in violation or not of their obligations derived from the police function; \n\t Incompatible Negotiation or Improper Use of Position ( section 399° ) -Punishes a public officer who improperly, directly or indirectly or by a simulated act, shows interest in any contract or operation in which he/she intervenes due to his/her position in order to obtain a benefit; and \n\t Influence Peddling ( section 400° ) - Punishes an individual (public official or private person) that having influence (or pretending to have it) receives or requests an illegal benefit in order to intervene or intercede before a public official or public servant that is in charge of a judicial or administrative case. \n\t Illicit Enrichment ( section 401° ) - Punishes the public official who, abusing his/her position, illegally increases his/her patrimony.  \n \n\n In addition, Law 30424 (modified by Law Decree No. 1352 and Law 30835 ), which became effective in January 2018, created and later extended an autonomous liability system for legal entities that commit the crimes of Generic Active Bribery, Active Transnational or International Bribery, Specific Active Bribery, Active Bribery of Police Officer, Collusion, Influence Peddling, Money Laundering and terrorism financing.   \n  \n"]
["Has there been a specific anti-bribery and corruption law enacted in your jurisdiction in the last ten years?","Yes. \nLaw 30424 (modified by \nLaw Decree No. 1352 and \nLaw 30835) created and later extended an autonomous liability system for legal entities. This regulation became effective as of January 2018 and provide the basis to hold legal entities involved in certain corruption-related crimes independently liable. Under this regime, legal entities can be held liable for the crimes of active bribery, specific active bribery, transnational bribery, collusion, influence peddling, money laundering and terrorism financing. \nAdditionally, in January 2019 \nRegulation of Law No. 30424 (\nSupreme Decree No. 002-2019-JUS) came into force, developing the characteristics, policies, procedures and stages of the compliance program that legal entities could implement to avoid being sanctioned for the commission of Generic Active Bribery, Active Transnational or International Bribery, Specific Active Bribery, Active Bribery of Police Officer, Collusion, Influence Peddling, Money Laundering and terrorism financing.\n\n\n \n"]
["Is a bribe payment to domestic government officials prohibited by the legislation?","Yes, it is prohibited as Generic Active Bribery under the \nCriminal Code, article 397° as outlined in our response to \n\"What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?.\""]
["Is a bribe payment to foreign government officials prohibited by the legislation?","Yes, Active Transnational or International Bribery is prohibited under the \nCriminal Code, article 397°-A as described above in our response to \n\"What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?.\""]
["Is requesting or accepting a bribe prohibited by the legislation?","Yes, accepting or receiving a bribe is considered a crime under \narticles 393°, 393°-A, 394°, 395°, 395°-A, 395°-B, 396°, and 393°-A as more fully described in our response to \n\"What is the key anti-bribery and corruption legislation in your jurisdiction?.\""]
["Who is subject to the legislation?","The general rule is that Peruvian law applies to any crime committed within Peruvian territory regardless of the nationality of the individuals or entities involved. \nIf the crime is committed by a legal entity, criminal liability could apply not only to the individuals who directly carried out the illegal activity but also to the legal representatives, managers or directors that adopted the decisions that led to the commission of the crime. In some cases, this attribution of the liability to the legal person’s higher echelons could also apply if (1) the crime was committed due to the absence of preventive controls, or (2) the crime was committed due to the failure of the representatives to comply with their supervision duties.\nIn January 2018, new legislation that establishes the independent and autonomous liability for legal entities entered into force. Under these new provisions, legal entities will have to develop and implement a compliance program to prevent the commission of corruption crimes (bribery, specific bribery and transnational bribery, collusion and influences peddling) as well as money laundering and terrorism financing. Failing to implement this preventive system could trigger liability for the legal entity, that could be charged and subjected to trial under the provisions of the \nCriminal Proceedings Code if it is determined that (1) the entity did not have a preventive system in force, or (2) the preventive system adopted was not effective taking into account the risks the entity faces within its regular activities. This legislation has a specific regulation contained in \nSupreme Decree 002-2019-JUS."]
["Is there criminal liability for corporate entities who have either paid or accepted a bribe payment?","Yes, starting in January 2018, corporate entities became subject to criminal liability as explained in our response to \"\nWho is subject to the legislation?\". "]
["What is the penalty for individuals violating the law?"," The penalties depend on the offense, as follows: \n\n \n\t Collusion ( Art. 384° ) - three to six years of imprisonment; \n\t Embezzlement ( Art. 387° ) - four to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Passive Proper Bribery ( Art. 393° ) - five to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t International Passive Bribery ( Art. 393°-A ) - five to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Improper Passive Bribery ( Art. 394° ) - four to six years of imprisonment; \n\t Specific Passive Bribery ( Art. 395° ) - six to fifteen years of imprisonment; \n\t Passive Proper Bribery in the Police Function ( Art. 395°-A ) - five to ten years of imprisonment; \n\t Passive Improper Bribery in the Police Function ( Art. 395°-B ) - four to seven years of imprisonment; \n\t Passive corruption of Jurisdictional Auxiliaries. ( Art. 396° ) - five to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Generic Active Bribery ( Art. 397° ) - four to six years of imprisonment; \n\t Active Transnational or International Bribery ( Art. 397º-A ) - five to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Specific Active Bribery ( section 398° Criminal Code ) - five to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Active Bribery of Police Officer ( Section 398-A Criminal Code ) - four to eight years of imprisonment; \n\t Incompatible Negotiation or Improper Use of Position ( Section 399° Criminal Code ) - four to six years of imprisonment; and \n\t Influences Peddling ( Art. 400° ) - four to six years of imprisonment. \n \n\n In all the above-mentioned cases, the judge will also impose a disqualification from carrying out activities or contracts with the state, fines, among others. \n  \n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, what is the penalty for corporate entities violating the law?","Yes, under the new legislation, corporate entities must implement a compliance program (“prevention model”) in order to prevent the commission of bribery, specific bribery, transnational bribery, collusion, influences peddling, money laundering, and terrorism financing. The compliance program, if implemented prior to the commission of the crime, may fully exonerate the corporate entity from liability, if it is considered suitable to prevent or significantly reduce the risk of the commission of the abovementioned crimes. The Stock Market Superintendency will analyze the suitability of the compliance program if a crime is detected within the activities of the entity.\n\n\n \n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the legislation, does having a compliance program designed to prevent bribery constitute a defense?","Yes. Under the new legislation, corporate entities must implement a compliance program (“prevention model”) in order to prevent the commission of bribery, specific bribery, transnational bribery, money laundering, and terrorism financing. The compliance program, if implemented prior to the commission of the crime, may fully exonerate the corporate entity from liability, if it is considered suitable to prevent or significantly reduce the risk of the commission of the abovementioned crimes. The Stock Market Superintendency will analyze the suitability of the compliance program if a crime is detected within the activities of the entity.\n"]
["Assuming corporate entities are liable for violating the anticorruption law, is it possible for a corporate entity to reach a deferred prosecution agreement or leniency agreement with the enforcement authorities?","The new legislation applicable to legal entities for the aforementioned crimes does not establish any specific provision as to differed prosecution agreements or leniency agreements.\nHowever, according to the \nPeruvian Criminal Procedures Code, \nsections 472 and \n474, a defendant can request the Prosecutor’s Office to be considered as a cooperator in a plea deal process (“\ndelación”). If this agreement is reached, the individual could obtain an exoneration, reduction or suspension of his/her penalty if he/she provides verifiable information that allows the Prosecutor’s Office to identify those criminally liable for the crimes.\nUnder the new legislation, \nsection 12, provides a series of elements, including substantial cooperation, which may constitute mitigating circumstances resulting in a reduction of penalties for legal entities. The cooperation provided must aid the authorities in the clarification of the crime prior to the intermediate stage of the trial and It will be considered by the judge at sentencing as a basis to mitigate the penalty. The entity’s ability to obtain this benefit is at the judge’s sole discretion and his/her view as to whether the cooperation provided was “substantial.” In addition, the verified confession prior to the formalization of the investigation may also reduce the penalty. Please note, however, that neither cooperation nor the verified confession is part of an agreement between the prosecution and the defense under the terms of the law. \n"]