Former first lady Nadine Heredia and other people convicted in Peru's "Contributions to the Nationalist Party" case have asked the judiciary to extend to them a Constitutional Tribunal ruling that benefited former President Ollanta Humala, seeking to have their money laundering convictions thrown out.
The request was filed with the Second National Criminal Appeals Chamber, which is reviewing the appeal against the conviction over contributions from Brazilian companies during the 2006 and 2011 election campaigns. A document obtained by El Comercio asks judges to declare the convictions null and send the case to the Public Ministry so it can archive the proceedings.
The Appeals Chamber issued a resolution ordering that the Public Ministry be notified to rule on the request. Alongside Heredia, who is under asylum in Brazil, the party's former treasurer Mario Julio Torres Aliaga and the Nationalist Party itself, which has since lost its political registration, are also seeking the same benefit. Heredia was sentenced to 15 years as a co-author of money laundering over irregular financing of her campaigns.
The legal defense of other convicted individuals, including Ilan Heredia, the former first lady's brother; their mother, Antonia Alarcón Cubas; and Rocío del Carmen Calderón Vinatea and Eladio Mego Guevara, is expected to make the same request. The next hearing session of the Second Appeals Chamber is scheduled for Wednesday, August 5, at 4:30 p.m.
Humala's release and the tribunal's ruling
Humala was released on the night of Friday, July 31, after serving one year and three months of a 15-year sentence imposed in April 2025. He, his wife and five others were found guilty of receiving money and, despite being able to presume it was illicit, recording it as campaign contributions and expenses, which amounted to money laundering.
The Constitutional Tribunal ruled that the money laundering charge could not apply to funds received and later entered as contributions to the 2006 and 2011 campaigns, because those acts were not classified as that crime at the time. The tribunal ordered the criminal proceeding against Humala for money laundering declared null, voiding the preliminary investigations and all subsequent actions, including the sentence, and directed the prosecutor's office to issue the corresponding order.
Lawyers' arguments for extending the ruling
David Flores León, one of Heredia's lawyers, argued that extending the tribunal's ruling was valid under the principle of equality, since the objective grounds for finding no crime applied to the same facts tied to the 2006 and 2011 financing. He asked the appeals court to recognize that the reasoning behind invalidating the case against Humala applies equally to others prosecuted over the same facts.
According to Flores León, the tribunal had already rejected the theory that receiving campaign money could be prosecuted as laundering on the grounds that its criminal origin was known or presumable. He said the tribunal found a lack of typicity, a failure to identify the underlying source crime, and no rational justification for presuming the money's origin was illicit.
Flores León asked that the appeal proceeding conclude without a ruling on the merits, with the case sent to the Public Ministry to order the definitive archiving of the investigation against Heredia, Torres Aliaga and the Nationalist Party, under finding 50 of the ruling. He said keeping the process open against Heredia and Torres Aliaga, despite the finding that the act lacked legal support, would produce an unequal application of the law compared with Humala.
On the Nationalist Party, Flores León said its inclusion in the case was tied to the use of campaign funds and the conduct of individuals within its structure. Since the shared legal basis, money laundering, was declared not applicable, he argued the accusation against the party could not stand either.
Other lawyers confirm the request
Juan Carlos Portugal, lawyer for Eladio Mego Guevara, who was also convicted in the case, told the program "Siempre a las Ocho" that the Superior Chamber would evaluate the requests filed by defendants seeking to extend the tribunal's ruling. He said the defense teams had asked for the effects of the Humala case to be extended to all the accused, including his client and Heredia, because the core issue the Constitutional Tribunal found to violate the principle of legality applies to everyone.
Edinson Huamán, another of Heredia's lawyers, confirmed to El Comercio that the request to apply the ruling by extension had been filed, and that the appeals tribunal had already notified the Public Ministry about it. He said the chamber issued a resolution notifying the parties that the Constitutional Tribunal's ruling was being forwarded to the Prosecutor's Office and the Attorney General's Office so they could rule on whether the request was admissible.
Huamán noted that unlike the "Cócteles" case, this process has moved quickly, with a ruling requested within 24 hours, which he said reflects the urgency of the case.
