Supreme Court Cassation Triggers Battle Over Corruption Report: Lawyer Fredy Infanzón Joins the Fight

Controversial Figure Emerges in Peruvian Bribery Case

Lima, Peru – A complex web of legal maneuvering and potential conflicts of interest has surfaced in a Peruvian corruption examination involving prominent fishing businessman Óscar Peña. The case,initially reported in 2020,centers around allegations that Peña attempted to influence a judge,Noemí Nieto Nacarino,through alleged bribery. Recent developments have brought a former prosecutor’s assistant into the spotlight,raising further questions about impartiality and justice within the Peruvian legal system.

Initial Allegations and Peña’s Response

Óscar Peña, a key figure in the Peruvian fishing industry, initiated efforts in October 2025 to have a November 2020 report retracted and removed from publication. This report detailed an investigation by the Callao Anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office into the bribery accusations. Peña maintained that the case had been dismissed by the Supreme Court in August 2025 through a process known as cassation, prompting his demand for the report’s removal.

The publishing entity, Convoca, responded by disseminating Peña’s full notarial letter alongside an updated version of the original report reflecting the Supreme Court’s decision. However, Convoca upheld its decision to maintain the report’s publication, citing its continuing public interest value despite the court ruling. This decision later drew the attention of lawyer Fredy Infanzón Laurente,who joined Peña’s request for rectification.

The Role of fredy Infanzón Laurente

The involvement of Fredy infanzón Laurente adds a new layer of complexity to the case. Infanzón previously served as an assistant to prosecutor Wils Gonzales Morales between 2011 and February 2015. During this period, he worked within the Second Provincial anti-Corruption Prosecutor’s Office of Callao, actively involved in investigating both Óscar Peña and Félix Moreno, the former regional governor of Callao. The investigation focused on potential offenses including influence peddling, collusion, and illegal negotiations related to the Fundo Oquendo case.

Investigations revealed that Prosecutor Gonzales Morales assigned Infanzón the task of drafting a proposal for the dismissal of the Fundo Oquendo case, which was subsequently signed and approved on May 13, 2014.

From Prosecutor’s Office to private Counsel

In February 2015, Infanzón resigned from his position within the Public Ministry. Just a month later, in March 2015, he became the legal representative for LSA Enterprise, a company founded by Óscar Peña Aparicio. This transition raised immediate scrutiny, particularly as Infanzón subsequently submitted a request for clarification regarding a precautionary measure issued by Judge Noemí Nieto, a ruling favorable to Peña’s company. This sequence of events suggests a potential conflict of interest,raising questions about the impartiality of legal proceedings.

Key Dates and Roles: A Timeline

Date	Event	Key Figures Involved
2011-Feb 2015	Infanzón works as assistant to Prosecutor Gonzales Morales	Fredy Infanzón, Wils Gonzales Morales
May 13, 2014	Draft dismissal proposal for Fundo Oquendo case approved	Fredy Infanzón, Wils Gonzales Morales
Feb 2015	Infanzón resigns from Public Ministry	Fredy Infanzón
Mar 2015	Infanzón becomes legal representative for LSA Enterprise	Fredy Infanzón, Óscar Peña
Oct 2025	Peña requests report rectification	Óscar Peña, Convoca
Aug 2025	Supreme Court dismisses case via cassation	Supreme Court, Óscar Peña

Broader Implications for Peruvian Justice

This case highlights ongoing concerns about corruption and influence within the Peruvian justice system. The country has faced numerous challenges in ensuring transparency and accountability in recent years. A 2023 report by transparency International ranked Peru 69th out of 180 countries in its Corruption Perception Index, indicating a moderate level of perceived corruption. Transparency International’s Corruption Perception Index. The current situation underscores the need for robust oversight mechanisms and independent investigations to maintain public trust in legal institutions.

The intertwining of legal professionals with individuals under investigation, and the subsequent shifts in portrayal, raise basic questions about the integrity of the process. Such instances can erode public confidence and undermine the principles of fair and impartial justice.

What measures can be implemented to prevent similar conflicts of interest in the future? Do you believe that the public’s right to data outweighs an individual’s claim to have damaging reports removed, even after a legal dismissal?

Share your thoughts in the comments below and help us continue the conversation.

What are the legal implications of supreme Court’s decision on the admissibility of the corruption report in the “Plan Futuro” case?

Supreme Court Cassation Triggers Battle Over Corruption report: Lawyer fredy Infanzón Joins the Fight

A recent cassation appeal filed with the Supreme Court has ignited a fierce legal battle surrounding a controversial corruption report, drawing prominent lawyer Fredy Infanzón into the fray. The case centers on allegations of impropriety within the national infrastructure growth program,“plan Futuro,” and the validity of the investigative report that initially surfaced these claims. This development has significant implications for ongoing anti-corruption efforts and public trust in government institutions.

The Core of the Dispute: plan Futuro and the Initial Report

“Plan Futuro,” launched in 2023, aimed to modernize the nation’s transportation network – roads, bridges, and rail lines – with a budget exceeding $15 billion. Shortly after its inception, a detailed report, compiled by investigative journalist Elena vargas and commissioned by the self-reliant watchdog group “Transparencia Nacional,” alleged widespread bid-rigging, inflated contracts, and potential embezzlement of funds.

The report specifically named several high-ranking officials and construction firms, alleging a systematic scheme to siphon off public money. Initial investigations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office yielded some preliminary findings supporting the allegations, but faced significant roadblocks and accusations of political interference.

The Cassation Appeal: Challenging the Report’s Admissibility

the current legal challenge stems from a ruling by the Court of Appeals which upheld the admissibility of Vargas’s report as evidence in a related civil lawsuit filed by citizens seeking damages due to the alleged corruption. several individuals named in the report, including former Minister of Infrastructure Ricardo Morales, filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court arguing the report is:

* Based on unsubstantiated claims: The appellants contend the report relies heavily on anonymous sources and lacks concrete evidence to support its accusations.

* Violates due process: They claim the report’s publication and subsequent use as evidence have irreparably damaged their reputations without a fair possibility to defend themselves.

* Lacks journalistic integrity: The appeal questions Vargas’s impartiality, citing her previous public criticism of the government.

Cassation appeals focus on legal errors made by lower courts,rather than re-examining the facts of the case. The Supreme Court’s decision will therefore center on weather the Court of Appeals correctly applied the law regarding the admissibility of investigative reports as evidence.

Fredy Infanzón’s Involvement: A High-profile Defense

Lawyer fredy infanzón, renowned for his expertise in constitutional law and defense of individual rights, has joined the legal team representing the appellants. Infanzón’s involvement instantly elevated the profile of the case. He has publicly stated his intention to vigorously defend his clients against what he calls a “politically motivated witch hunt.”

“We are not arguing that corruption doesn’t exist,” Infanzón stated in a press conference. “We are arguing that this report, as it stands, is not a reliable basis for legal action and violates fundamental principles of justice.”

Infanzón’s strategy is expected to focus on challenging the report’s methodology and the credibility of its sources. He is also likely to argue that the widespread dissemination of the report has created a climate of prejudice that will make it impractical for his clients to receive a fair trial.

Implications for Anti-Corruption efforts

The Supreme Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences for anti-corruption efforts in the country.

* A ruling upholding the report’s admissibility would strengthen the hand of investigative journalists and civil society organizations working to expose corruption. It would also signal a willingness by the judiciary to hold public officials accountable.

* A ruling overturning the admissibility could be interpreted as a setback for transparency and accountability, potentially emboldening corrupt actors and chilling investigative journalism.

The case also raises significant questions about the balance between freedom of the press, the right to a fair trial, and the public’s right to know.

the Role of “transparencia Nacional” and Elena Vargas

“Transparencia Nacional” has vowed to defend the integrity of the report and its findings. The organization has mobilized its supporters to pressure the Supreme Court to uphold the Court of Appeals’ ruling. elena Vargas, the investigative journalist behind the report, has expressed confidence in her work and is prepared to testify before the supreme Court if necessary. She maintains that her report is based on thorough research and credible sources.

Potential Outcomes and Timeline

Legal