Giuliana Loza hopes the “cocktail case” will be filed as prosecutors have failed to prove the use of illegal funds.

Juliana Lozalawyer Keiko Fujimori, noted that until now Public service So far, he has failed to prove the presence of illegal funds for his client’s presidential campaigns in the “cocktails” case, which he believes should eventually be archived.

In statements to Everything is known from RPP Newsthe lawyer stated that the prosecutor Jose Domingo Perez failed to establish through evidence that Keiko Fujimori used illegal money to finance her election campaign. In this sense, she added that she was confident that the case would go to court because of the time it takes to investigate.

“(The prosecutor) never secured this as evidence, most importantly, he could not convincingly establish that there were illegal funds here, which, allegedly, according to his thesis, would have been laundered,” he said. .

“He didn’t define it, he didn’t accredit it after so many years of investigation, and it’s something that will eventually be resolved at some point, and we’re sure it will have to be archived at some point,” he added.

He also said that the former head of the construction company Odebrecht in Peru Jorge Baratamade contradictory and inconsistent statements and that neither he nor Marcelo Odebrecht they indicated that they gave Keiko Fujimori money or coordinated donations to her campaign with her.

On sanitized charge

Regarding the announcement of Power of attorney that the day before he declared the fiscal charge against Keiko Fujimori sanitized, the lawyer indicated that the charge could only be discussed, as if the prosecutor José Domingo Pérez Gomez had presented it correctly.

“What happened on March 11, 2021, when Mr. Perez indicted Ms. Fujimori and others, led to 17 months of constant debate. The prosecutor was called up to 6 times to correct the petition, because he formulated it incorrectly, not meeting the minimum standards required by criminal law, and then he was returned many times,” he said.

He indicated that there was no more risk as the investigation had already been completed and prosecution disclosed the names of protected witnesses, applicants and effective employees. Thus, it is time to move on to an intermediate phase of the process in which substantive control will be discussed to determine whether to go to court.

“How long will it take? it depends on the dynamics of the hearings, what we will be discussing are the central issues, we have hearings two to three times a week from 8:30 am to 7 pm, the debate is very intense. It depends on the dynamics, and after that comes the evidentiary control, so we are still very far from the final decision,” he said.