Roberto Sánchez Palomino, the presidential candidate for the Juntos por el Perú (JP) party, is facing a legal battle that could not only result in a prison sentence but effectively terminate his political leadership. The Peruvian Public Ministry has requested a sentence of five years and four months of imprisonment for Sánchez, alleging a systematic pattern of false financial reporting to the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE) between 2018, and 2020.
Beyond the request for incarceration, prosecutors are seeking a “definitive disqualification” from his role as president of Juntos por el Perú. The core of the accusation rests on a stark discrepancy: while official reports submitted to ONPE claimed the party received zero contributions during specific periods, investigators found hundreds of thousands of soles flowing through bank accounts linked to the candidate’s immediate family and associates.
The case, handled by prosecutor Humberto Ruiz of the Second Corporate Penal Prosecutor’s Office of Lima, is built on the concept of “concurso real”—meaning the prosecution views these as separate, independent crimes rather than a single continuous act. Sánchez is accused of both “false statement in an administrative procedure” and the “falsification of information regarding contributions, income, and expenses of political organizations.”
The legal proceedings come at a critical juncture for the JP candidate, as the judiciary weighs evidence that suggests the party’s financial transparency was an illusion maintained through third-party accounts to bypass electoral oversight.
The ‘Brother’s Account’ and the 2018 Discrepancy
The most significant piece of evidence cited by the Public Ministry involves the 2018 regional and municipal elections. According to the prosecution, Roberto Sánchez signed financial reports in January and July 2019 asserting that the party had incurred no expenses and received no contributions from its membership, reporting a balance of S/ 0.00.
However, fiscal investigators discovered a BCP bank account held by William Ricardo Sánchez Palomino, the candidate’s brother and former president of the party’s National Electoral Committee. This account reportedly received deposits totaling S/ 204,951.36. Prosecutors argue that these funds were party contributions that should have been legally declared to the ONPE’s Fund Supervision Management office.
Testimony from former party officials supports this claim. Leandro Afrade Cerna Herrera, a former JP leader, stated that candidates across the country were instructed to deposit specific fees into the account opened by the Sánchez brothers. He described a system where vouchers were sent to Roberto and William Sánchez to confirm payment, creating a parallel financial structure that remained invisible to state regulators.
Pattern of Misreporting: 2019 and 2020
The prosecution’s case extends beyond the 2018 cycle, alleging that the habit of underreporting income continued into 2019 and 2020. For the 2019 annual financial information, the party again reported zero income. Yet, the Public Ministry identified a joint bank account—opened at the request of the National Electoral Committee—which received S/ 75,750.00.
The discrepancies continued during the 2020 congressional elections. The prosecution alleges that while the party reported a private “in-kind” contribution of S/ 25,000, it failed to account for the aforementioned S/ 75,750.00. A reported contribution of S/ 27,400 for the use of a party local in 2020 was flagged as fraudulent. When ONPE contacted the alleged donor, Edwin Espinoza Chávez, he explicitly denied having provided any such contribution.
| Period/Election | Amount Reported to ONPE | Amount Identified by Prosecution | Key Evidence/Source |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 Elections | S/ 0.00 | S/ 204,951.36 | William Sánchez Palomino’s BCP account |
| 2019 Annual | S/ 0.00 | S/ 75,750.00 | Joint account (Committee request) |
| 2020 Elections | S/ 25,000 (in-kind) | S/ 75,750.00 | Unreported joint account funds |
| 2020 Annual | S/ 27,400 (local) | S/ 0.00 | Donor denial (Edwin Espinoza Chávez) |
The Defense: ‘I Only Signed the Papers’
Roberto Sánchez and his legal team, led by attorney Carlos García Asenjo, have pushed back against the charges. The defense’s primary strategy is to distance the candidate from the actual preparation of the financial documents. García Asenjo argues that Sánchez, in his capacity as party president, merely signed reports that were drafted by the party’s accountants.
The defense also highlights a previous victory in the case. A Superior Chamber recently archived the charge of “fraud in the administration of legal entities,” which had alleged that party funds were diverted for personal use. The court determined that the facts did not constitute that specific crime, a point the defense emphasizes to argue that Sánchez never personally appropriated the money.
In his own statements to the prosecution, Sánchez has maintained that the funds received by the Electoral Committee were for “internal self-management” and logistics—such as handling candidate challenges and transport—and therefore did not fall under the category of “party funds” regulated by ONPE. This distinction remains a central point of contention between the defense and the Public Ministry.
The Legal Clock: Prescription and the ‘Ley Soto’
A critical element of this case is the timeline for prescription—the legal deadline after which a crime can no longer be prosecuted. Under the “Ley Soto,” the prescription period is extended by half of the maximum penalty plus an additional year.
Legal experts, including penal lawyer Carlos Caro, suggest that the different charges will expire at different times. The charge of “false statement in an administrative procedure” could potentially prescribe by January 2027. However, the more serious charge of “falsification of information on contributions,” which carries a higher maximum penalty, could remain actionable until 2030.
In other words that even if some aspects of the case are dismissed due to time constraints, the core of the accusation regarding campaign finance falsification could follow Sánchez for several more years, potentially impacting his eligibility for future office.
Disclaimer: This article covers ongoing legal proceedings. All individuals mentioned are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The next critical checkpoint in this case will occur on May 27, when the Preparatory Investigation Court will analyze the Public Ministry’s new accusatory requirement. This hearing will determine whether the case proceeds to trial and which specific charges will be debated in court.
What are your thoughts on the intersection of campaign finance and political eligibility? Share this story and join the conversation in the comments below.
