The Peruvian legislature incorporated asset forfeiture through Legislative Decree 1373 as an independent asset seizure mechanism aimed at
dismantling the economic infrastructure of organized crime and corruption. However, its Preliminary Title reverses the burden of proof; it is
sufficient for the prosecution to point to evidence of illicit activity for the affected owner to have to prove, positively and exhaustively, the lawful
origin of their assets. This provision directly clashes with two pillars of the Peruvian constitutional state: the principle of nemo tenetur se ipsum
accusare, which prohibits requiring anyone to contribute to their own incrimination, and the presumption of innocence, which must inform all
state actions.
This manuscript demonstrates that this reversal of the burden of proof is unconstitutional and requires a specific correction: restoring the
burden of proof to the State, without sacrificing the legitimate goal of recovering illicit assets. The research employs a rigorous qualitative
methodology-systematic doctrinal analysis, comparative review of national and international regulations, exhaustive study of the Constitutional
Court’s jurisprudence, and triangulation using coherence matrices extracted directly from primary sources-without resorting to surveys or
quantitative models.
The findings reveal that asset forfeiture not only materially violates the presumption of innocence but also transforms citizens into unwitting
accomplices in their own financial condemnation, generates structural procedural inequality, and discourages formal economic activity in a
context of high informality. Furthermore, regulatory and operational deficiencies exacerbate the violation of due process and property rights.
The conclusion is clear, only the reinstatement of th
Full article bellow