La figura delictiva del autolavado de activos en el ordenamiento jurídico-penal peruano. Una legitimación de su punibilidad antes y después del Decreto Legislativo N° 986, del 22 de julio de 2007
No Thumbnail Available
Date
2025-04-02
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
Acceso al texto completo solo para la Comunidad PUCP
Abstract
La presente investigación ostenta como propósito uniformizar los criterios de
tratamiento de la institución delictiva del “autolavado”, desde una toma de postura
que consiste en establecer que esta forma de ejecución delictiva del lavado de
activos ha existido, en nuestra legislación penal nacional, desde la dación de la
primera norma penal antilavado, es decir, desde el 08 de noviembre de 1991,
mediante la incorporación de los artículos 296-A y 296-B del Código Penal, en virtud
del Decreto Legislativo N° 736, aplicable cuando los activos ilícitos (bienes, dinero,
efectos o ganancias) provienen del injusto penal de tráfico ilícito de drogas,
existiendo una ampliación de injustos penales precedentes, conforme a la evolución
legislativa antilavado.
En ese sentido, se afirma la naturaleza autónoma del delito de lavado de activos, a
partir identificar como bien jurídico preponderante de protección al “orden
socioeconómico” (interés jurídico distinto a los tutelados en los injustos penales
fuentes) y, por tanto, la legitimidad de punición del autolavado. Asimismo, se
asevera que la modificación efectuada al artículo 6 de la Ley N° 27765, del 20 de
junio de 2002, a través del Decreto Legislativo N° 986, del 22 de julio de 2007, versa
sobre una norma penal declarativa, la que reconoce una regla de tratamiento de
una institución o figura penal preexistente, no rigiéndose bajo todos los alcances del
principio de legalidad, propio en las normas penales constitutivas (que regulan un
supuesto de hecho delictivo y lo conminan con una sanción penal).
The purpose of this research is to standardize the criteria for the treatment of the criminal institution of "self-laundering", from a position that consists of establishing that this form of criminal execution of money laundering has existed in our national criminal legislation since the first anti-money laundering criminal law was enacted, that is to say, since November 8, 1991, through the incorporation of articles 296-A and 296-B of the Criminal Code, by virtue of Legislative Decree N° 736, applicable when the illicit assets (goods, money, effects or profits) come from the criminal offense of illicit drug trafficking, there being an expansion of previous criminal offenses, according to the evolution of anti-money laundering legislation. In this sense, the autonomous nature of the crime of money laundering is affirmed, since it identifies the "socioeconomic order" (a legal interest different from those protected in the criminal offenses) as the preponderant legal good to be protected and, therefore, the legitimacy of punishing self-laundering. Likewise, it is asserted that the amendment made to article 6 of Law N° 27765, of June 20, 2002, through Legislative Decree N° 986, of July 22, 2007, deals with a declarative criminal norm, which recognizes a rule of treatment of a pre-existing institution or criminal figure, not being governed under all the scopes of the principle of legality, proper in the constitutive criminal norms (which regulate an alleged criminal act and impose it with a criminal sanction).
The purpose of this research is to standardize the criteria for the treatment of the criminal institution of "self-laundering", from a position that consists of establishing that this form of criminal execution of money laundering has existed in our national criminal legislation since the first anti-money laundering criminal law was enacted, that is to say, since November 8, 1991, through the incorporation of articles 296-A and 296-B of the Criminal Code, by virtue of Legislative Decree N° 736, applicable when the illicit assets (goods, money, effects or profits) come from the criminal offense of illicit drug trafficking, there being an expansion of previous criminal offenses, according to the evolution of anti-money laundering legislation. In this sense, the autonomous nature of the crime of money laundering is affirmed, since it identifies the "socioeconomic order" (a legal interest different from those protected in the criminal offenses) as the preponderant legal good to be protected and, therefore, the legitimacy of punishing self-laundering. Likewise, it is asserted that the amendment made to article 6 of Law N° 27765, of June 20, 2002, through Legislative Decree N° 986, of July 22, 2007, deals with a declarative criminal norm, which recognizes a rule of treatment of a pre-existing institution or criminal figure, not being governed under all the scopes of the principle of legality, proper in the constitutive criminal norms (which regulate an alleged criminal act and impose it with a criminal sanction).
Description
Keywords
Derecho penal--Legislación--Perú, Lavado de dinero--Jurisprudencia--Perú, Crimen organizado--Legislación--Perú, Lavado de dinero--Legislación--Alemania, Lavado de dinero--Legislación--España, Lavado de dinero--Legislación--Colombia, Lavado de dinero--Legislación--Ecuador, Lavado de dinero--Legislación--Argentina