During the hearing scheduled for this Monday, October 14, the Public Ministry decided to withdraw the appeal against the resolution that rejected the preliminary arrest against Elizabeth Peralta. The Prosecutor’s Office, represented by Alejandra Cárdenas, argued that the request was made before the investigation for influence peddling against Peralta Santur was formalized. Nevertheless, They will reiterate their request for preventive detention for 18 months against the Money Laundering prosecutor.
When the preliminary investigation against Andrés Hurtado and Elizabeth Peralta began, the Prosecutor’s Office requested preliminary detention for both of them upon determining that there was a possible risk of escape or obstruction of the proceedings. However, the Judiciary declared founded the order for the former television hostbut in the case of Peralta Santur, the request was rejected. This was the decision that the Public Ministry appealed, considering that it was necessary for the measure to be for both investigated. However, in the recent hearing, they gave up on it.
Subsequently, when the investigation was formalized for alleged crimes of influence peddling and specific passive bribery to the detriment of the State, the Prosecutor’s Office requested 18 months of preventive detention for Andrés Hurtado and Elizabeth Peralta. But the figure repeated itself again. Judge Juan Carlos Checkley made the decision that the former television presenter remain in prison until March 18, 2026, while against the Money Laundering prosecutor, the Judiciary issued a restrictive appearance measure and a financial bond of 35 thousand soles.
Sources of La República in the Prosecutor’s Office They reported that the request for 18 months in prison will soon be reiterated preventive against Elizabeth Peralta. Based on what was stated during the hearing on September 30, where prosecutor Alejandra Cárdenas highlighted that Peralta Santur did not hand over his cell phone and gave two different versions about them, which was interpreted as an act of obstruction in the investigation. However, for Judge Checkley, this detail would not have been a sufficient element of conviction for preventive detention.
Why didn’t the Judiciary issue 18 months of preventive detention against Elizabeth Peralta?
Other reasons why the Judiciary did not dictate the 18 months of preventive detention against Peralta Santur was that did not consider it a serious suspicionthat,during the raid on prosecutor Peralta’s homea suitcase with clothes and a plane ticket will be found in his name.
“In addition,a travel case with clothing was founda pair of slippers and toiletries, with a Miami – Lima flight ticket in the name of Peralta Santur,which is also an immediate leak indicatorespecially when asked andShe said she thought they were going to arrest her.that’s why he put the clothing items in the suitcase,” reads the judicial resolution to which La República had access where they exposed what was found during the search of his home. But Juan Carlos Checkley considered that “there is no danger of obstruction evident” on the suitcase found.
Other details found by the Prosecutor’s Office were the manuscripts that said: “Delete thebackupfrom WhatsApp“, “Clear Get History Settings“, “Delete Google Maps history, my routesHowever, for Checkley Soria “this does not necessarily constitute obstruction of justice, since it is known that applications today have temporary file controls.”
