Peru’s public prosecutor announced Monday that its Extinction of Domain office in Ayacucho is the department with the highest number of rulings aided by the country’s controversial asset forfeiture law. Between 2019 and 2024, the prosecutor’s office in Ayacucho issued a total of 255 rulings, confiscating a total of 3,943,235 soles ($1,074,427) in assets and cash linked to illicit activities.
The Extinction of Domain Law in Peru is what allows the government to seize assets obtained through illicit means. Under this law, the state can seize real estate, vehicles, and money linked to illegal activities, without requiring a criminal conviction.
In December, lawmakers introduced a bill to amend the Extinction of Domain Law that would require a final ruling to begin the process. Specialized prosecutors in Ayacucho have warned that this change in the law could negatively affect seizure results.
Prominent attorneys have strongly criticized the Extinction of Domain Law, calling it the “greatest violation to constitutional rights in legislative history.” Enrique Ghersi, attorney and former Peruvian congressman, argued that applying the law to all illegal activities, rather than just serious crimes, shows a complete misunderstanding of the country’s legal dynamics.
Ghersi stated, “In Peru, more than 80% of the economy is informal, meaning 8 out of every 10 Peruvians are, technically, illegal. Do these judges and prosecutors intend to seize the homes, street vendors, or small workshops of the majority of the population? That is simply impossible.” The law allows the state to seize property even if the individual is declared innocent.
Supreme Judge Manuel Luján Túpez noted that more than five thousand cases would end in impunity if Congress modifies the Extinction of Domain Law. What remains unknown is how high the number is of those who have had their assets unjustly seized.
The consequences of the next steps for the law are still unclear. The Constitutional Court admitted last week that two lawyers intervened in a constitutional challenge against this law.