Ever since Peru’s Constitutional Court dismissed the “Cócteles” case in January 2026, a certain phrase has been circulating. It’s on social media, in conversations, and in some headlines: Keiko Fujimori “was acquitted.” Her supporters repeat it as proof of her innocence, and her critics as proof of her impunity. Both interpretations stem from the same mistake. This fact-check explains what the Constitutional Court decided, what it did not decide, and why the correct term is not “acquitted.”
Verdict: false. Keiko Fujimori was not acquitted. In fact, no Peruvian court has found her innocent of the charges brought against her by the Prosecutor’s Office. What actually happened was different: the Constitutional Court annulled the trial and ordered the charges to be dismissed. In other words, it was a conclusion without a verdict.
What Was Said
The phrase “Keiko was acquitted” appears in three forms. First, in statements by Fuerza Popular leaders following the Constitutional Court’s ruling. Second, in social media posts celebrating the dismissal as “proven innocence.” And also in critical messages claiming that “she was acquitted” due to political pressure. Furthermore, Fujimori herself spoke of an acquittal following the ruling. The fact-checking organization Ojo Público labeled that version as false.
What Actually Happened
The “Cócteles” case investigated the financing of Fuerza Popular’s 2011 and 2016 campaigns. The trial began on July 1, 2024, with the prosecution seeking a sentence of 30 years and 10 months in prison. However, in October 2025, the Constitutional Court overturned the proceedings. It ruled that the prosecution’s successive amendments to the indictment had violated due process.
In January 2026, the Constitutional Court went further and ordered the dismissal of the charges of money laundering and criminal organization. The reasoning was twofold. First, in 2011 and 2016, irregular party financing was not a standalone crime in Peru. That offense took effect in 2019. Second, it had not been proven that a criminal organization existed within the party. The Tenth Preliminary Investigation Court dismissed the case that month. Subsequently, the Appeals Court upheld the decision in June 2026.
At no point during this process did a court examine whether the contributions existed, whether they were concealed, or who ordered them. That, precisely, is the difference.
Why “dismissed” is not “acquitted”
| Acquittal | Dismissal | |
|---|---|---|
| Who issues it? | The court hearing the case | A higher court, in this case the Constitutional Court |
| Does it examine the facts? | Yes: it evaluates evidence and witnesses | No: it reviews whether the proceedings complied with the law |
| What does it rule? | That the person is not guilty | That the proceedings cannot continue |
| What happens with the underlying issue? | It is answered | It remains unanswered |
Thus, an acquitted person was tried and found not guilty. A person whose case was dismissed was found neither guilty nor not guilty. In Fujimori’s case, moreover, the Constitutional Court added something else. The events of 2011 and 2016 were not crimes when they occurred. That is not an acquittal either: it is a finding that the law at the time did not punish that conduct.
What Did Remain in the Case File
However, the dismissal does not erase what was admitted during the trial. The Fuerza Popular defense team itself acknowledged that there were “fictitious donors” in the 2011 campaign. That is, people who lent their names to conceal the origin of the funds. The defense did, however, deny that it constituted money laundering. Furthermore, Dionisio Romero, former president of Credicorp, acknowledged having delivered approximately US$3.65 million in cash. Jorge Barata, a former representative of Odebrecht, testified that the construction company contributed US$1.2 million. These are admitted or declared facts, not court rulings, and have not been subject to judicial review.
On the other hand, three investigations remain open without charges having been filed. These include the 2021 campaign contributions, the Alas Peruanas case, and an investigation into illicit enrichment opened in February 2026. As of July 28, 2026, Article 117 of the Constitution limits charges against the president during her term of office.
How to Say It Correctly
In summary, saying that Fujimori “was acquitted” is inaccurate. Saying that she “was found guilty” or calling her corrupt is equally inaccurate, because no court has established that. The correct statement is this: her trial was overturned due to procedural flaws and because the acts in question did not constitute a crime at the time. No one ruled on the merits of the case. The complete timeline—including the nine charges and the three ongoing investigations—is available on Auditoría Abierta: what has been proven, what was dismissed, and what remains open in Keiko Fujimori’s case file.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Was Keiko Fujimori acquitted in the “Cócteles” case?
No. The Constitutional Court overturned the case in October 2025 due to procedural defects. It then ordered the case to be closed in January 2026. No court ruled on whether the events actually occurred. An overturn is not an acquittal.
So is she innocent?
Legally, she retains the presumption of innocence, just like anyone who has not been convicted. However, no one has declared her innocent, because the merits of the case were never decided. These are two different things.
Why did the Constitutional Court dismiss the case?
For two reasons. According to the court, the successive amendments to the indictment violated due process. Furthermore, irregular party financing was not a standalone crime in 2011 and 2016, when the events occurred. That offense has existed since 2019.
What investigations remain open against her?
Three, with no charges filed. The 2021 campaign contributions, the Alas Peruanas case, and an investigation into illicit enrichment involving the $3.6 million from Dionisio Romero. During her term in office, Article 117 of the Constitution limits the charges that can be brought against her.
Sources consulted
- Ojo Público: Keiko Fujimori’s claim that the Constitutional Court acquitted her in the “Cócteles” case is false
- Infobae: Judge complies with Constitutional Court ruling and definitively dismisses the “Cócteles” case (January 14, 2026)
- La República: Judiciary permanently dismisses the “Cócteles” case (June 16, 2026)
- El Comercio: Keiko Fujimori and the “Cócteles” case: the situation following the Constitutional Court’s ruling (2025)
- El Comercio: Fuerza Popular’s defense admits to fictitious donors (2024)
- Infobae: Keiko Fujimori’s Trial: Charges and Requested Prison Terms (July 2, 2024)
- Gestión: Keiko Fujimori Reaches 50.135%—What Is the Status of the Investigations Against Her? (June 30, 2026)
- Auditoría Abierta: Keiko Fujimori Under the Microscope—The Complete File
This fact-check compiles judicial rulings and statements attributed to their authors. Ongoing investigations are listed without charges or convictions. “Under the Microscope” offers President Keiko Fujimori a space to respond and will update this article with any new developments. Information verified as of October 6, 2026.
Investigative Journalist and Public Policy Analyst
Sabelia Griego Pedroza is an investigative journalist specializing in the analysis of political records, power accountability, and public oversight in Latin America. Her career focuses on the rigorous examination of official documents, judicial rulings, corporate registries, and financial networks linked to public figures and electoral processes.
Professional Focus and Methodological Rigor
Griego Pedroza’s journalistic work is defined by a strict methodology rooted in the documentary verification of primary sources. Through her investigations, she navigates the intersection of institutional politics, legal disputes, and corporate transparency, providing readers with documented contexts that prioritize fact-checking over media speculation.
Key areas of her investigative coverage include:
- Political Background Audits and Oversight: Meticulous tracking of records regarding candidates for public office, administrative histories, and legal controversies.
- Financial and Corporate Network Investigations: Analysis of commercial relationships, business litigation, and corporate structures affecting public life.
- Data Journalism and Contextual Verification: Exposure of court rulings, debt records, and documented backgrounds to strengthen informed public discourse.
Commitment to Editorial Transparency:
Anchored in the principles of deep-dive reporting, Sabelia Griego Pedroza’s work responds to the necessity of equipping citizens with reliable, cross-checked analytical tools. Her approach seeks to unravel complex processes through the direct presentation of documentary evidence, fostering rigorous, auditable journalism focused on institutional transparency.
1 thought on “Was Keiko Fujimori acquitted in the “Cócteles” case? Fact-check: No, her trial was overturned—and that makes a difference.”