Glossary of Corruption, Justice, and Oversight in Latin America: 24 Terms to Help You Understand a Case File Without Getting Lost

Corruption cases are full of terms that the press uses every day but that almost no one defines. A headline might say that a court “dismissed a preliminary hearing in limine” or that a conviction was “overturned, not revoked,” and the reader is still left wondering whether the person is free, in prison, or in limbo. That’s why this glossary explains the 24 terms that appear most frequently in the Open Audit case files. In addition, each entry includes a short definition, a clarification of what the term does not mean, and an example taken from a real case.

If you’re only going to read one post, read the one on annulment and acquittal. This is the most common source of confusion and the one that causes the most harm: it turns people who haven’t been convicted into “acquitted” individuals and people who have been acquitted into those who have “gotten away with it.” You can consult the rest when a case file requires it.

Crimes and Conduct

Bribery

This is a bribe. A public official receives or accepts money, goods, or favors in exchange for performing, failing to perform, or delaying an act within the scope of their official duties. Additionally, there is passive bribery—committed by the official who receives the bribe—and active bribery—committed by the private individual who offers it. In several countries, the offense is aggravated if the act is unlawful.

What it is not: receiving a declared ceremonial gift or a legal campaign contribution. In other words, the key factor is the exchange for an act performed in the course of one’s official duties.

Example: Martín Vizcarra was convicted in Peru of passive bribery for receiving, according to the court, 2.3 million soles from two construction companies while he was governor of Moquegua.

Embezzlement

This is the appropriation or misappropriation of public funds or assets by the person responsible for managing them. Furthermore, it is not necessary for the official to keep the money; it is sufficient to use it for a purpose other than the legal one, for their own benefit or that of a third party. In some countries, it is called embezzlement.

What it is not: mismanagement or inefficient spending. Therefore, for embezzlement to occur, there must be a diversion of funds, not merely waste.

Example: Jorge Glas’s third conviction in Ecuador, a 13-year sentence, was for embezzlement of funds intended for the reconstruction of Manabí following the 2016 earthquake.

Collusion

This is a secret agreement between a public official and a private individual to defraud the government in a procurement process. The official is supposed to act in the public interest but instead colludes with the supplier. For example, it often occurs in rigged bids and overpricing.

What it is not: awarding a contract to a known supplier if the process was fair. Collusion, however, requires an agreement to harm the government.

Example: Alejandro Toledo was convicted in Peru of collusion and money laundering in connection with the awarding of the Southern Interoceanic Highway contract to Odebrecht.

Money Laundering

This involves giving the appearance of legality to money of criminal origin. It goes through three phases: placing the money into the system, moving it to conceal its origin, and reintegrating it as if it were clean. In corruption cases, moreover, the predicate offense is usually bribery or embezzlement.

What it is not: possessing undeclared money. Therefore, for money laundering to occur, there must be a predicate offense from which the money derives.

Example: Ricardo Martinelli was convicted in Panama of money laundering in the New Business case, involving the purchase of a publishing group with public funds.

Unregistered campaign financing

This involves receiving campaign contributions without declaring them to the electoral authority. In some countries, it is a criminal offense; in others, it is an administrative violation punishable by a fine. When the funds come from a crime, it can constitute money laundering, although that interpretation is debated.

What it is not: a legal, declared contribution that falls within the legal limits.

Example: Two former leaders of Semilla in Guatemala pleaded guilty to charges of unregistered campaign financing in 2019. In Peru, the Constitutional Court ruled in 2025 and 2026 that contributions made prior to 2016 could not be prosecuted as money laundering, which led to the dismissal of the cases against Keiko Fujimori and Ollanta Humala.

Illicit Enrichment

This refers to an increase in a public official’s net worth that cannot be justified by their legal income. For this reason, it is the only corruption offense proven by comparing figures: what was declared versus what is recorded in official records.

What it is not: being wealthy before taking office. Instead, the crime requires an unjustified increase during the term of public office.

Example: Dina Boluarte was investigated in Peru for illicit enrichment following the “Rolex case”; an accounting report concluded that there was no unjustified imbalance in her assets.

Influence peddling

This involves using one’s position or connections to obtain a favorable decision from a public official—for oneself or a third party—in exchange for a benefit. In other words, the person engaging in influence peddling does not make the decision: they pressure the decision-maker.

What it is not: making representations or engaging in declared and legal lobbying.

Example: Pedro Castillo was investigated in Peru for influence peddling regarding military promotions.

Stages of the Process

Preliminary Hearing

This is the procedure for waiving the immunity of a public official protected by it—such as a member of Congress, a president, or a judge—before they can be tried. In Guatemala, this is decided by the Supreme Court of Justice or Congress, depending on the office held. In Peru, however, it is called a constitutional indictment and is handled by Congress.

What it is not: a trial. Therefore, if the preliminary hearing is dismissed, it does not mean the person is innocent. It means that their immunity was not lifted and, therefore, they could not be tried.

Example: In April 2026, the Supreme Court of Guatemala dismissed the preliminary hearing against Samuel Pérez for the so-called “hojicidio.” The act of tearing up the letter was recorded; what the Court rejected was paving the way for a trial.

Dismissal in limine

This is the dismissal of a motion without analyzing the merits of the case, because it does not meet the minimum requirements. The Latin expression means “at the threshold.” Thus, it applies to preliminary hearings, constitutional appeals, and other legal remedies.

What it is not: a decision on whether the events occurred. In fact, the court did not even examine them.

Example: In May 2025, the Supreme Court of Guatemala dismissed in limine the preliminary hearings against Bernardo Arévalo and Samuel Pérez related to the 2023 protests.

Pretrial Detention

This is the detention of a person while they are under investigation or on trial, before a verdict has been reached. It is justified by the risk of flight or obstruction of justice. In addition, there are maximum time limits that vary by country and that judges may extend.

What it is not: a conviction or a prelude to one. A person in pretrial detention retains the presumption of innocence.

Example: Luis Arce, former president of Bolivia, has been in pretrial detention since December 2025 without a verdict.

Formal Indictment

This is the act by which the prosecution asks a court to try a person for specific crimes, based on concrete evidence. Prior to this, there are only investigations or allegations. After this, the trial begins.

What it is not: a complaint, an open investigation, or a witness’s accusation. A convicted person naming someone does not constitute a formal indictment.

Example: Two convicted former leaders of Semilla named Samuel Pérez, but there is no record of a formal indictment or proceedings against him.

First Instance

This is a court’s first decision on the merits of a case. However, it may be appealed. A first-instance conviction is a conviction, but it is not final.

What it is not: a final judgment. In fact, it may be upheld, reduced, or overturned.

Example: Lenín Moreno was convicted in the first instance in Ecuador in August 2026 and sentenced to five years for bribery; he announced he would appeal.

Final or enforceable judgment

This is a judgment against which no further ordinary appeal is possible. It is then enforced: the sentence begins to be served, and disqualification from public office takes effect. In some countries, it is referred to as “enforceable”; in others, “final” or “in force.”

What it is not: a first-instance sentence, even if the person is already in prison. There are prisoners with non-final sentences, such as Martín Vizcarra.

Example: Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s sentence became final in June 2025, when the Argentine Supreme Court upheld the six-year sentence.

Appeal

This is an extraordinary appeal to the highest court to review whether the judgment correctly applied the law. In other words, it does not review the facts, but rather the law. In several countries, it is the final possible stage within the ordinary court system.

What it is not: a third instance where the entire case is retried.

Example: Following Álvaro Uribe’s acquittal on appeal, the Colombian Attorney General’s Office filed a cassation appeal in January 2026 with the Supreme Court.

Amparo

This is a legal action to protect fundamental rights against an act by an authority. In corruption cases, it is used to halt arrests, overturn court decisions, or challenge electoral rulings. It is generally adjudicated by constitutional courts or specialized chambers.

What it is not: an appeal on the merits of the case. In other words, an amparo addresses whether a right was violated, not whether the person is guilty.

Example: Three amparos filed with the Constitutional Court of Guatemala forced a repeat election for the congressional board of directors in January 2024.

Judicial Decisions

Annulment and acquittal: the most important difference

Acquittal is a court’s decision that, after adjudicating the facts, declares the person not guilty. In other words, it rules on the merits of the case.

Annulment is a decision by a higher court that sets aside a proceeding or a judgment due to a legal defect, without ruling on whether the facts occurred. Thus, the proceeding is dismissed, but the question remains.

Therefore, the difference is decisive. A person who has been acquitted was tried and found not guilty. In contrast, a person whose case was annulled was found neither guilty nor innocent. In some cases, the case may be reopened; in others, the legal defect prevents it.

Example: Ollanta Humala was not acquitted. Peru’s Constitutional Court annulled his entire case in July 2026 because it ruled that campaign contributions made prior to 2016 were not actionable as money laundering. The same occurred in Keiko Fujimori’s “Cócteles” case. In contrast, Álvaro Uribe was acquitted on appeal, with a cassation appeal pending.

Reversal

This is a decision by a higher court that overturns a lower court’s ruling after reviewing it. If the lower court convicted and the higher court overturns the conviction, the person is acquitted. Conversely, if the lower court acquitted and the higher court overturns the acquittal, the person is convicted.

What it is not: an annulment. In contrast, a reversal does address the merits of the case.

Example: In October 2025, the Superior Court of Bogotá reversed the first-instance conviction against Álvaro Uribe and acquitted him.

Disqualification

This is the prohibition from holding public office for a specified period or for life. Furthermore, it often accompanies convictions for corruption and is, in practice, the most enduring political consequence.

What it is not: a prison sentence. Disqualification can occur without a prison sentence, and a prison sentence can occur without disqualification.

Example: Lenín Moreno received a lifetime disqualification along with his five-year sentence. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been subject to a lifetime disqualification since her conviction became final.

Pardon

This is the remission of a sentence by decision of the executive branch. It extinguishes the punishment but does not expunge the conviction or declare innocence. Furthermore, each country determines who may grant a pardon and for which crimes.

What it is not: an acquittal or a dismissal. In other words, the convicted person remains convicted; they simply cease to serve the sentence.

Example: Donald Trump pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández in December 2025. His 45-year sentence for drug trafficking remains on record; what was removed was the sentence itself.

Civil Contempt

This is a sanction imposed by a judge on someone who disobeys an order in a civil proceeding, such as failing to appear at a hearing. In the United States, it may also include an arrest warrant, enforceable only within the court’s jurisdiction.

What it is not: a criminal conviction. Civil contempt does not imply that the person has committed a crime.

Example: A Miami-Dade judge found Roberto Arzú in civil contempt in 2019 for failing to appear in the lawsuit filed by JJ Rendón and ordered his arrest, valid only in Florida.

International Sanctions

Engel List

This is the list that the U.S. Department of State has published since 2021, featuring individuals from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua identified as having engaged in significant corruption or undermining democracy. It is named after Congressman Eliot Engel. Inclusion on the list results in a visa ban, and the list is publicly available.

What it is not: a conviction or a criminal charge. It is an administrative decision by a foreign government, based on information that is not always made public.

Example: Consuelo Porras, former attorney general of Guatemala, has been on the Engel List since 2021. Alejandro Giammattei has been barred from entering the United States since 2024 for “significant corruption.”

OFAC and the Magnitsky Act

OFAC is the U.S. Treasury Department office that enforces economic sanctions: it freezes assets under U.S. jurisdiction and prohibits U.S. companies and banks from doing business with the sanctioned individual. The Global Magnitsky Act allows for the sanctioning, in any country, of those responsible for serious corruption or human rights violations.

What it is not: a court ruling. In fact, sanctions are imposed and lifted by administrative decision, without a trial.

Example: OFAC sanctioned Horacio Cartes’ companies in 2023 and lifted those sanctions in July 2026. The State Department’s designation as “significantly corrupt” remains under review.

Interpol Red Notice

This is a request to Interpol member countries to locate and provisionally detain a person with a view to extradition. It is issued by Interpol at the request of a state. However, it does not mandate detention; each country decides for itself.

What it is not: an automatic international arrest warrant. Many countries do not execute it if they consider the case to be politically motivated or if the person has been granted asylum.

Example: In July 2026, Ecuador’s National Court of Justice requested a Red Notice against Rafael Correa, who lives in Belgium under asylum.

Diplomatic asylum and territorial asylum

Diplomatic asylum is granted within an embassy: the person remains protected as long as they do not leave the building. Territorial asylum is granted within the territory of the country that grants it and allows the person to move freely within that territory. However, in practice, both prevent the enforcement of a sentence from the country of origin.

What it is not: an annulment of the conviction. In other words, the sentence remains in effect in the country that issued it.

Example: Ricardo Martinelli moved from diplomatic asylum at the Nicaraguan embassy in Panama to territorial asylum in Colombia in May 2025. His Panamanian conviction remains in effect.

Editorial Concepts

Level of substantiation

This is the classification that Auditoría Abierta applies to each allegation: proven by an official ruling, documented but disputed, or unsubstantiated. In other words, it does not measure the severity of the fact, but rather the strength of the public evidence supporting it.

What it is not: a verdict. A claim that is “unsubstantiated” may be true, but no one has publicly proven it.

Example: In Roberto Arzú’s case file, the TSE fines are official rulings; the allegation of a contract killing published by a media outlet is, to date, a claim without public documentation.

Right of Reply

This is the right of the person named in a publication to have their version of events published in the same media outlet with equivalent prominence. In several Latin American countries, it is regulated by law; in others, it is an ethical practice.

What it is not: an obligation to remove the content. In other words, the right of reply is an addition, not a substitute.

Example: Each “Open Audit” file includes the denials of the person under investigation alongside each accusation and provides space to respond both before and after publication.

Presumption of innocence

This is the principle by which every person is considered innocent until a final judgment states otherwise. It binds the courts and, in responsible journalism, dictates the language used: “accused,” “indicted,” or “under investigation” rather than “guilty” or “corrupt” as long as there is no conviction.

What it is not: a guarantee that the person is innocent. Rather, it is a rule regarding who must prove what.

Example: Based on this principle, Open Audit reports do not call anyone “corrupt” without a final conviction, even if they face multiple allegations.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is the difference between acquittal and dismissal?

An acquittal declares a person innocent after the facts have been adjudicated. A dismissal sets aside the proceedings due to a legal defect, without determining whether the events actually occurred. Ollanta Humala and Keiko Fujimori had their cases dismissed in Peru; Álvaro Uribe was acquitted in Colombia. These are distinct legal situations.

If a preliminary hearing is dismissed, is the person innocent?

No. The dismissal of a preliminary hearing means that the person’s immunity was not lifted and, therefore, they could not be tried. In other words, no ruling has been made on the facts. A new request may be filed in the future.

Is being on the Engel List a conviction?

No. It is an administrative decision by the U.S. Department of State that results in a visa ban. In fact, there is no trial, and the information on which it is based is not always made public. That is why it appears in the records as “international sanction without judicial proceedings.”

Is a person in pretrial detention convicted?

No. Pretrial detention is a measure taken during the investigation or trial, justified by the risk of flight or obstruction of justice. In the meantime, the person is presumed innocent until a verdict is reached. Luis Arce, in Bolivia, has been in that situation since December 2025.

What does it mean for a conviction to be “final” or “enforceable”?

It means that no further ordinary appeals can be filed against it and it is enforced: the sentence is served and the disqualification takes effect. A first-instance conviction is a conviction, but it can be overturned on appeal. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner’s conviction is final; Martín Vizcarra’s, for the time being, is not.

Does a pardon erase the conviction?

No. A pardon waives the sentence, but the conviction remains on record and does not imply innocence. For example, Juan Orlando Hernández was pardoned in 2025; his conviction for drug trafficking did not disappear—he simply stopped serving his sentence.

Why does the glossary make such a distinction between similar terms?

Because that distinction is what separates a legal case from a political campaign. For example, calling someone whose trial was dismissed “acquitted,” or someone in pretrial detention “convicted,” changes the meaning of the facts. The Open Audit method relies on using each word with its exact legal meaning.

The definitions in this glossary have been cross-referenced with the legal texts and rulings cited in the Open Audit case files. The examples reflect the procedural status verified as of October 4, 2026, and are updated with each change.