Peru compliance program design
Designing a compliance program for operations that touch Peru requires navigating two distinct regulatory environments: the US anti-corruption framework, anchored by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 et seq.), and Peru’s domestic anti-corruption architecture under Legislative Decree No. 1352 and the Código Penal. A program that satisfies FCPA requirements does not automatically align with Peruvian law — and vice versa. Peruvian enforcement has intensified in recent years, with the Superintendencia del Mercado de Valores (SMV) and the Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (UIF-Peru) actively pursuing compliance failures, while US authorities continue to scrutinize cross-border transactions involving Peruvian counterparties. Designing a program that works in both environments means addressing risk assessment, third-party due diligence, gift-and-entertainment controls, and whistleblower mechanisms under two sovereign frameworks simultaneously. Atchuthan Sriskandarajah, Esq., the principal attorney and founder of Law Offices of SRIS, P.C., has prepared this resource on Peru compliance program design. For guidance on your cross-border compliance needs, reach Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. at (888) 437-7747.
What Peru Compliance Program Design Covers
A Peru-facing compliance program addresses the structural overlap between US federal anti-corruption law, administered by the Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission, and Peru’s own enforcement regime under Legislative Decree No. 1352, which established corporate criminal liability for corruption offenses. A well-designed program does not simply replicate a US template and append a Spanish-language translation. It maps each compliance control to the specific risk profile of the Peruvian operating environment: public procurement exposure, customs and port interactions, mining and extractive-sector licensing, and the use of intermediaries — all of which present heightened corruption risk under Peruvian conditions. Peru’s adhesion to the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention and the UN Convention Against Corruption means that local enforcement expectations increasingly mirror international standards, but the procedural mechanisms, reporting obligations, and liability triggers differ materially.
The design process typically begins with a jurisdiction-specific risk assessment that identifies where the organization touches Peruvian government officials, state-owned enterprises, or regulated entities. From there, the program builds or refines written policies tailored to Peruvian law — covering facilitation payments (which remain prohibited under Peruvian law despite narrow exceptions in certain other jurisdictions), gift and hospitality limits aligned with both FCPA accounting provisions and Peruvian public-ethics rules, and third-party due diligence calibrated to the Peruvian commercial landscape. The program must also address recordkeeping and internal controls, which sit at the intersection of FCPA books-and-records requirements and Peruvian tax and corporate law. A Peru-specific compliance program is not a standalone document; it functions as a module within the organization’s broader global compliance framework, with country-specific annexes, risk matrices, and escalation protocols.
How Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. Approaches Peru Compliance Matters
Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. provides US-side counsel on the design and evaluation of compliance programs that address FCPA, OFAC sanctions (as of 2026), and related US regulatory requirements for clients whose operations involve Peru. The firm’s approach distinguishes between US-law compliance — where Mr. Sriskandarajah and US-admitted Of Counsel provide substantive legal guidance — and Peruvian-law compliance, which requires the involvement of an attorney admitted by the Colegio de Abogados de Lima (CAL). Martín Mayandía serves as Of Counsel for Peru matters at Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. Mr. Mayandía is admitted to practice law in Peru. He is not admitted to practice law in the United States. On engagements involving both US and Peruvian compliance components, the firm coordinates with Mr. Mayandía on the Peruvian-law dimension — including analysis under Legislative Decree No. 1352, UIF-Peru reporting requirements, and SMV regulatory obligations — while US-admitted counsel handle the FCPA, OFAC, and US securities-law components.
For organizations building a compliance program from the ground up, the engagement typically starts with a scoping phase that identifies the regulatory touchpoints on both sides of the border. The US-side analysis focuses on the FCPA’s jurisdictional reach — which extends to US issuers, domestic concerns, and certain foreign persons acting within US territory under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-3 — as well as the accounting provisions and the internal-controls mandate. Where the client’s operations involve sectors subject to heightened Peruvian enforcement — mining, construction, pharmaceuticals, or government contracting — the firm works with Peru-admitted counsel to incorporate sector-specific compliance controls. The firm also advises on the coordination of internal investigations that may have parallel exposure to US and Peruvian authorities, with careful attention to privilege frameworks, data-transfer restrictions, and the distinct self-reporting incentives under each country’s regime.
About Mr. Sris
Atchuthan Sriskandarajah, Esq. — Mr. Sris — is the Owner and Founder of Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. Admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York, he has guided the firm since its founding in 1997. Mr. Sris testified before the Virginia House Courts of Justice Committee in support of 2019 HB 635 (chief patron Del. David Bulova), the bill that became the 2019 revision to Va. Code § 20-107.3(g). His practice encompasses FCPA compliance counseling, cross-border anti-corruption program design, and US regulatory matters involving foreign counterparties.
Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. operates from its principal location in Virginia, by appointment only, and serves clients through additional locations in Maryland, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and New York. The firm maintains an Of Counsel relationship with Martín Mayandía, admitted to practice law in Peru since 2009, who provides Peruvian-law support on cross-border compliance matters. Mr. Mayandía is admitted to practice law in Peru. He is not admitted to practice law in the United States. Mr. Mayandía’s work with the firm is limited to matters of Peruvian law and to serving as a liaison for international clients with US-licensed attorneys at the firm.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a US company with a subsidiary in Peru need a separate Peru-specific compliance program?
Yes. While a global compliance framework can serve as the foundation, the Peruvian subsidiary must operate under policies that address Peru-specific legal requirements under Legislative Decree No. 1352, UIF-Peru resolution rules, and SMV regulations. The Peruvian legal environment imposes distinct obligations — for example, corporate criminal liability for bribery offenses was introduced in Peru through Legislative Decree No. 1352 in 2017, and the compliance-defense provisions differ from those recognized in US practice. A Peruvian subsidiary should maintain country-specific risk assessments, local-language policies accessible to all employees, and training that reflects the Peruvian regulatory context. The global program and the Peru module should be designed to interoperate, with clear escalation paths when conduct implicates both US and Peruvian law. For guidance on structuring a Peru-specific compliance module within your global framework, contact Law Offices of SRIS, P.C. at (888) 437-7747.
How does the FCPA apply to business activities in Peru?
The FCPA applies to US issuers, domestic concerns, and certain foreign persons acting in US territory who engage in bribery of Peruvian government officials in connection with obtaining or retaining business. Under 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-1 (issuers), § 78dd-2 (domestic concerns), and § 78dd-3 (certain foreign persons in US territory), the statute prohibits corrupt payments to foreign officials. In the Peruvian context, this covers interactions with officials of the national government, regional governments, municipal authorities, state-owned enterprises such as Petroperu, and public healthcare procurement officials. The FCPA also imposes accounting and internal-controls requirements that affect how Peruvian-subsidiary transactions are recorded and reported. Companies with Peru operations should assess FCPA exposure across all touchpoints — including customs clearance, licensing, tax audits, and judicial proceedings — where Peruvian officials exercise discretionary authority.
What role does Peru’s Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (UIF-Peru) play in compliance?
The UIF-Peru is Peru’s financial intelligence unit, responsible for receiving, analyzing, and disseminating suspicious-transaction reports and for enforcing anti-money-laundering compliance obligations across regulated sectors. Under Peruvian law, designated entities — including financial institutions, notaries, real estate professionals, and certain non-financial businesses — must implement AML compliance programs and report suspicious activity to the UIF. A Peru-facing compliance program must address UIF reporting triggers, customer-due-diligence standards, and recordkeeping requirements that parallel but are not identical to those under the US Bank Secrecy Act. Coordination between AML and anti-corruption compliance functions is essential, because corruption proceeds frequently implicate both regimes. For organizations subject to both US and Peruvian AML requirements, the program must map each obligation to the applicable regulatory authority.
Can a compliance program designed for US requirements satisfy Peruvian regulators?
Not necessarily. While a US-designed program provides a strong structural foundation, Peruvian regulators evaluate compliance programs against standards articulated in Legislative Decree No. 1352, SMV guidelines, and UIF-Peru resolutions — which differ from US DOJ and SEC guidance in several respects. For example, Peru’s corporate criminal liability framework recognizes a compliance defense under Article 105 of the Código Penal (as amended by Legislative Decree No. 1352), but the elements of an adequate compliance program under Peruvian law are defined in Supreme Decree No. 002-2019-JUS and its annex. These requirements include specific provisions on the autonomy of the compliance officer, direct reporting lines to the board, and risk-assessment methodologies that may not align precisely with the US Sentencing Guidelines’ seven elements of an effective compliance program. A program that is deemed adequate under US standards may still fall short under Peruvian regulatory expectations. Dual-jurisdiction review is advisable.
Is facilitation payments a recognized defense under Peruvian anti-corruption law?
No. Peruvian law does not recognize a facilitation-payments exception for corrupt payments to public officials. Under the Código Penal, as amended by Legislative Decree No. 1352, any payment or promise of an undue advantage to a public official to influence the performance of their duties is prohibited, regardless of the amount or the characterization of the payment as a facilitation or grease payment. This distinguishes Peruvian law from the FCPA, which contains a narrow facilitation-payments exception for routine governmental actions. For a compliance program operating across both jurisdictions, the stricter Peruvian standard should govern the organization’s policies on payments to Peruvian officials. A program that permits facilitation payments under the FCPA exception could expose the organization to criminal liability in Peru. The prudent approach is to prohibit all facilitation payments in the Peru-facing policy.
What should a Peru third-party due diligence program include?
A Peru-focused third-party due diligence program should address risk-based screening, beneficial-ownership verification, government-touchpoint analysis, and ongoing monitoring calibrated to the Peruvian commercial environment. Peruvian intermediaries — including customs agents, distributors, joint-venture partners, and legal representatives — present varying degrees of corruption risk depending on their interaction with government officials and regulated sectors. The program should include background checks against Peruvian public records, screening against the Registro de Inhabilitados and international sanctions lists, verification of commercial registration with SUNARP, and review of any past interactions with Peruvian regulatory or law-enforcement authorities. Contractual provisions should include FCPA and Peruvian-law compliance representations, audit rights, and termination triggers tied to corruption violations. The program should also address the heightened risks associated with the extractive sector, where interactions with regional and municipal officials in mining and infrastructure projects present elevated corruption exposure.