Peru’s public prosecutor’s office has formally accused presidential candidate Roberto Sánchez and co-defendants of submitting false financial reports to the National Office of Electoral Processes (ONPE) between 2018 and 2020, a case that could reshape the 2026 election landscape. The prosecution presented 164 evidentiary elements to support charges of falsifying party contribution records and making false declarations in administrative proceedings, seeking five years and four months in prison for Sánchez—a penalty that, if upheld, would bar him from holding public office for a decade.
The accusations stem from discrepancies between the party’s official financial disclosures and internal records. For the 2018 electoral cycle, Sánchez—then president of Juntos por el Perú (JP)—reported zero income and expenditures to ONPE. However, prosecutors allege that S/204,951.36 in contributions was deposited into accounts controlled by William Ricardo Sánchez Palomino, Roberto’s brother and the party’s 2018 National Electoral Committee president. Similar discrepancies were found in reports for 2019, 2020, and the 2020 congressional elections, including undeclared cash transfers totaling S/75,000 to co-defendants’ joint accounts and an unacknowledged “aporte en bienes” (in-kind contribution).
Why This Case Matters
The allegations strike at the heart of electoral transparency in Peru, where party financing scandals have repeatedly undermined public trust. If Sánchez is convicted, it would mark the first time a major presidential candidate faces criminal penalties for financial misreporting—a precedent that could prompt ONPE to tighten oversight of party disclosures ahead of June’s elections. The case also tests Peru’s judicial system’s ability to prosecute high-profile figures amid a polarized political climate.
Prosecutors argue the false declarations were deliberate, citing internal party communications that acknowledged voluntary contributions—including from candidates like Francisco José Espinoza Llanos, who confirmed paying S/200–S/300 for his 2018 precandidacy through the National Electoral Committee. Testimonies from former JP officials, including secretary general Raúl del Castillo and legal representative Juan Silva, corroborate that such “aportes” were routine but never reported to ONPE.
What Happens Next
A judge will review the prosecution’s 164 elements of evidence—including the disputed vouchers, party registration forms showing S/0.00 income, and declarations from witnesses like Yehude Simons, former prime minister and JP co-founder—during a May 27 hearing. If the case proceeds to trial, prosecutors plan to introduce an additional 101 pieces of evidence, potentially including Simons’ testimony and documents detailing “aportaciones en especie” (in-kind contributions) like campaign merchandise valued at S/27,400 in 2020.
Sánchez has denied wrongdoing, arguing the funds belonged to the autonomous Electoral Committee and that his brother’s role was misrepresented. His legal team may challenge the prosecution’s interpretation of party financing laws, particularly the obligation to report contributions collected at the local level. However, analysts expect the judge to focus on whether Sánchez, as JP’s legal representative, fulfilled his duty to submit accurate reports to ONPE—a responsibility he has acknowledged in past statements.
A possible next step could be a pretrial agreement, where Sánchez might plead guilty to lesser charges (e.g., administrative fraud) to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. If convicted, he would face disqualification from public office for 10 years under Peru’s penal code, effectively ending his presidential ambitions. The case could also trigger investigations into other parties’ financial practices, given the pattern of undeclared contributions described in testimony.
Frequently Asked Questions
What specific crimes is Roberto Sánchez accused of?
The prosecution alleges two charges: falseamiento de información sobre aportaciones (falsifying contribution records) and falsa declaración en procedimiento administrativo (false declaration in an administrative process), both punishable under Peru’s Organic Law of the Electoral Process.
Why was William Sánchez Palomino excluded from the case?
A superior court ruled in 2025 that William’s actions—receiving the disputed funds as Electoral Committee president—did not constitute the crimes charged (which required intent to deceive ONPE). His exclusion leaves Roberto Sánchez as the sole party official held legally accountable for the false reports.
Could this case delay the 2026 elections?
Unlikely. While a trial could extend into late 2026, Peru’s electoral calendar is fixed, and the Constitutional Court has previously ruled that criminal proceedings against candidates do not automatically postpone votes. However, a conviction before June could trigger legal challenges to Sánchez’s candidacy.
As Peru prepares for one of its most closely watched elections in decades, the outcome of this case may define not only Sánchez’s political future but also the standards for financial transparency in Latin America’s electoral processes.
With electoral campaigns already underway, how might this legal cloud over Sánchez’s candidacy influence voter perceptions of Juntos por el Perú’s integrity?
Related reading