Former Peruvian President Ollanta Humala, whom the Prosecutor’s Office accuses of having received funds from the Odebrecht company for his 2011 election campaign, said that, if the Brazilian company sent that money to Lima, it was stolen by its executive director in Peru, Jorge Barata.

“If that thesis that, indeed, Marcelo (Odebrecht) had arranged for Barata (to send money to his campaign), what I think, first, (is that) I don’t think that happened, but, if that happened, Barata stole the money,” he said in an interview with EFE.

The trial for those alleged contributions, and others of the Venezuelan government of Hugo Chávez for his 2006 campaign, is in its final phase and it is likely that a verdict will be known in the first week of March, although the parties may appeal.

During the trial, the Prosecutor’s Office has maintained that Humala and his wife, Nadine Heredia, received illicit contributions from Odebrecht, thanks to the intermediation of then-President Luiz Inacio Lula Da Silva, and Chávez to finance the 2006 and 2011 campaigns, so it considers that they committed money laundering.

His defense has denied the contributions and, likewise, assures that if they had received it, it does not constitute money laundering.

Advertisement

20250407_mh_renta_728x90

20250301_vacunacion_vph-728x90

20231124_etesal_728x90_1

20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90

domfuturo_netview-728x90

20240604_dom_728x90

CEL

In this sense, Humala said that Barata “is hiding information” and “I have never said who left the money in his office.”

“He says they left his money in his office, he doesn’t know who leaves him; that is, he has no secretary, he has no guardian, he doesn’t have a surveillance camera, he doesn’t have a janitor who takes data from the people who enter. Even to order a grilled chicken they ask you for your data, but this (Barata) curiously does not ask for data,” he said.

In 2017, the former director of Odebrecht in Peru confessed to the Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office that he gave 3 million dollars for the 2011 Humala presidential campaign, in which he was the winner.

Regarding this testimony, Humala commented that “it is a ‘sui generis’ case, because he has a problem in Brazil with the Lava Jato prosecutors,” since he “denounced the pressure” they made him, “forcing him to a series of things to give him an agreement to collaboration and threatening to have more time in prison.”

“So, he has done everything that the prosecutors have asked him to do,” he said.

Advertisement

20250407_mh_renta_728x90

20250301_vacunacion_vph-728x90

20231124_etesal_728x90_1

20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90

domfuturo_netview-728x90

20240604_dom_728x90

CEL

The former president reiterated that they have always been “financed exclusively with what is” in the party’s report and the notes they have mentioned, although he admitted that there could be some “disorder”, because “the campaign is a vortex”.

Regarding the testimony of businessman Martín Belaunde Lossio, initially very close to Humala and who said he had received money at the Venezuelan Embassy in Lima for the 2006 campaign, considered that it is a revenge, because he approved his extradition from Bolivia for a case of an alleged corrupt network.

“It is a revenge and the hand of the Prosecutor’s Office is evident, because this gentleman, when he brings him extradited from Bolivia, begins a process of effective collaboration, but they have only been given to him in 2024, with things that he would have said in 2016,” he said.

In 2022, Humala became the first former Peruvian president to be tried for the Odebrecht bribery scandal, uncovered in Brazil in the Lava Jato case and with repercussions in a dozen Latin American countries.

Advertisement

20250407_mh_renta_728x90

20250301_vacunacion_vph-728x90

20231124_etesal_728x90_1

20230601_agenda_primera_infancia_728X90

domfuturo_netview-728x90

20240604_dom_728x90

CEL