December 7, 2022

Complete News World

Alejandro Toledo: New setback for ex-president, US court overturns stay on extradition process | USA | Politics

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (United States) reversed the preemption action brought by the former president. for To Peru where he has to answer the Odebrecht case.

This is a new setback for Toledo Manrique, because with this judicial decision, the US government’s State Department can begin the process of evaluating the extradition request.

Prosecutors are seeking 20 years and 6 months in prison for obstruction and money laundering for the former president, who is believed to have received $35 million in bribes from the Odebrecht company in exchange for granting him work on the highway.

In a resolution, El Comercio agreed, Judges Smith Press and VanDyke . Toledo filed a writ of habeas corpus, which was denied in the first instance.

See: Jorge Lopez fired from Minzah after suspicious deposits: what are the criminal implications?

“Appellant’s motion (Docket Entry No. 4) to stay his extradition pending this appeal is denied,” the document states.


On May 3, 2022, Toledo and his party filed a writ of habeas corpus and preliminary injunction.

Habeas corpus was denied and precautionary measure was adopted as a first instance.

In July 2022, the State Department appealed the decision to suspend the extradition process and the court agreed.

Judge Thomas S. of the Northern District Court of California. Toledo Manrique appealed Hickson’s ruling, which ruled that the former president could be extradited to Peru.

However, there was this demand Judge Laurel Peeler ruled that there were sufficient grounds to consider that the former head of state, Ottbrecht, may have been involved in a corruption conspiracy.

See also  Darren Roberts | Wales | He thought his neck hurts from watching TV, but he had a very bad diagnosis: "I'm paralyzed" | Quadriplegic | United Kingdom | Description | EC stories | The world

“Reasonable grounds have been given to determine that the petitioner participated in the bribery scheme and committed collusion and money laundering. “It is the responsibility of the Peruvian court to assess the petitioner’s arguments, weigh the credibility of the witnesses’ testimony and, ultimately, decide whether there is sufficient evidence to convict him,” the magistrate ruled at the time.