Bibliographic citations
Samame, A., (2022). Informe Jurídico sobre el Recurso de Nulidad N° 2939-2015-LIMA El enriquecimiento ilícito, ¿un tipo penal que supone una inversión de la carga de la prueba y deja impune al cómplice que ayuda al autor a ocultar su patrimonio ilícito obtenido [Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú]. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/23144
Samame, A., Informe Jurídico sobre el Recurso de Nulidad N° 2939-2015-LIMA El enriquecimiento ilícito, ¿un tipo penal que supone una inversión de la carga de la prueba y deja impune al cómplice que ayuda al autor a ocultar su patrimonio ilícito obtenido []. PE: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú; 2022. http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12404/23144
@misc{renati/529605,
title = "Informe Jurídico sobre el Recurso de Nulidad N° 2939-2015-LIMA El enriquecimiento ilícito, ¿un tipo penal que supone una inversión de la carga de la prueba y deja impune al cómplice que ayuda al autor a ocultar su patrimonio ilícito obtenido",
author = "Samame Barrientos, Ana Carla",
publisher = "Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú",
year = "2022"
}
The purpose of this Legal Report is to determine whether the typical structure of the crime of illicit enrichment implies a reversal of the burden of proof, that is, whether it is the accused who would have to prove that his increase in assets, during the exercise of his office, is reasonably justified by his legitimate income. Likewise, to establish the moment of its consummation; from which, the title of imputation attributable to the extraneus who helped to hide the assets acquired by the intraneus as a consequence of his illicit increase of patrimony will be identified. In this sense, the method of investigation that will be used will be the predominant national and foreign doctrine, as well as the jurisprudential pronouncements of greater national relevance. Thus, it will be concluded that illicit enrichment, in the absolute, implies a reversal of the burden of proof and, therefore, it is not unconstitutional since there is no transgression to the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to silence of the accused. Likewise, the crime in question is of instantaneous consummation, but of permanent nature, that is to say, that the extraneus who cooperates in the transfer of the assets acquired by the intraneus as a consequence of his illicit patrimonial increase must respond as an accomplice to the crime of illicit enrichment; not under any other specific criminal offense. Therefore, according to the facts narrated in the Appeal for Annulment No. 2939-2015 -resolution under analysis-, the Supreme Court should not have acquitted Aurora De Vettori Rojas, Juan Carlos Chacón De Vettori, Cecilia Chacón de Vettori and Luis Miguel Portal Barrantes as accomplices of the crime of illicit enrichment.
This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License