Conclusions without technical evidence or site access
En el corazón de Trujillo, un techo derrumbado en febrero de 2025 cobró seis vidas e hirió a ochenta personas, dejando tras de sí no solo escombros, sino una disputa que revela cuánto cuesta determinar la verdad cuando el poder y el dolor se enfrentan. Indecopi multó a Real Plaza por negligencia en seguridad y atención a víctimas, pero el centro comercial rechaza la sanción argumentando que el regulador actuó sin evidencia técnica propia ni acceso al sitio del colapso. Lo que se debate en los tribunales no es solo una multa, sino la pregunta más antigua del derecho: ¿quién tiene la autoridad moral y técnica para declarar la culpa?
- Seis muertos y ochenta heridos en cuestión de segundos convirtieron un patio de comidas en el epicentro de una crisis que aún no encuentra cierre.
- Indecopi impuso una multa por falta de medidas preventivas y mala atención a las víctimas, pero Real Plaza la rechaza de plano alegando que el regulador nunca pisó el lugar ni encargó un análisis estructural independiente.
- La acusación de que un funcionario de Indecopi filtró detalles del caso ante estudiantes universitarios añade una capa de desconfianza procedimental que complica aún más la legitimidad del fallo.
- Real Plaza afirma haber respondido con rapidez durante la emergencia y haber alcanzado acuerdos de compensación con casi todas las partes afectadas, intentando separar la responsabilidad moral de la legal.
- El mall permanece cerrado por orden municipal mientras la investigación fiscal sigue abierta, y ninguna autoridad ha autorizado su reapertura, dejando el edificio como testigo mudo de lo ocurrido.
El 21 de febrero de 2025, una sección del techo del patio de comidas de Real Plaza Trujillo cedió sin previo aviso. Seis personas murieron y al menos ochenta resultaron heridas. Casi un año después, el centro comercial sigue cerrado y la batalla legal sobre quién debe responder se ha vuelto más intensa.
La semana pasada, Indecopi emitió una multa contra el establecimiento, alegando que no implementó medidas de seguridad adecuadas y que atendió de forma deficiente a las víctimas y sus familias. Real Plaza respondió con una declaración formal rechazando la sanción: el regulador, argumentó la empresa, llegó a sus conclusiones sin haber realizado análisis estructurales propios, sin haber accedido al lugar del colapso y sin haber encargado inspecciones de ingeniería independientes. ¿Cómo puede determinarse la causa de una falla sin examinar la evidencia?, preguntó la compañía.
A esto se sumó una segunda acusación: un funcionario de Indecopi habría comentado detalles del caso durante una clase universitaria, violando los protocolos de confidencialidad. Para Real Plaza, esta filtración evidencia fallas procedimentales que comprometen la validez de todo el proceso.
El mall también buscó reencuadrar su propia actuación, afirmando que respondió con prontitud durante la emergencia y que alcanzó acuerdos de compensación con casi todas las partes afectadas. Las autoridades municipales de Trujillo, sin embargo, dejaron claro que no autorizarán la reapertura mientras continúe la investigación fiscal.
Lo que queda expuesto en esta disputa es una tensión conocida: una empresa privada que cuestiona la competencia del regulador, y un regulador que defiende su autoridad para proteger a los consumidores incluso sin certeza técnica absoluta. Para las familias de los seis fallecidos y los ochenta heridos, el debate sobre la suficiencia de la evidencia resulta casi secundario frente a la pregunta que aún no tiene respuesta: por qué cayó ese techo.
On February 21st, 2025, a section of the food court ceiling at Real Plaza Trujillo gave way without warning. Six people died in the collapse. At least eighty more were injured, some critically. Nearly a year later, the mall remains shuttered, its future uncertain, and the legal battle over who bears responsibility has only intensified.
Last week, Peru's consumer protection agency, Indecopi, issued a fine against the shopping center, alleging it had failed to implement adequate safety measures and had mishandled the care of victims and their families in the aftermath. The ruling came from Indecopi's La Libertad regional office, which concluded the mall was negligent in its duty to protect public safety.
Real Plaza responded swiftly with a formal statement rejecting the fine. The company's core argument was blunt: Indecopi had reached its conclusions without any solid technical foundation. The mall pointed out that the regulator had never conducted its own structural analysis, never accessed the collapse site, and had never commissioned independent engineering inspections. How, the company asked, could Indecopi draw conclusions about what caused the roof to fail when it had not examined the evidence itself? The investigation remained ongoing in the fiscal courts, Real Plaza noted, making premature regulatory judgments all the more troubling.
Beyond the lack of technical rigor, Real Plaza leveled a second accusation: Indecopi had violated confidentiality protocols. According to the mall's statement, an Indecopi official had discussed details of the case during a university class, breaching the duty to keep sensitive information secure. This breach, the company argued, was symptomatic of deeper procedural flaws that undermined the legitimacy of the entire ruling.
The mall also sought to reframe its own conduct. Real Plaza asserted that it had responded promptly and appropriately during the emergency, mobilizing resources to aid the injured and support families. The company claimed it had reached compensation agreements with nearly all of the affected parties—a detail meant to suggest responsibility acknowledged and amends made, even if liability remained disputed.
The Trujillo municipal authorities offered little hope for reopening. They made clear that no permission to resume operations would be granted while the fiscal investigation continued. The building itself remained a crime scene of sorts, sealed and inaccessible, a monument to the moment when routine commerce turned to catastrophe.
What emerges from this dispute is a familiar tension: a private company defending itself against regulatory action by questioning the regulator's competence, while the regulator asserts its authority to protect consumers even in the absence of complete technical certainty. Real Plaza's argument—that Indecopi lacks the expertise and evidence to make its claims—may resonate with some observers. But for the families of the six who died, and the eighty who survived with injuries, the question of technical sufficiency feels almost beside the point. They want to know why the roof fell, and they want assurance it will not happen again. Until those questions are answered with clarity, the mall's legal defense, however technically sound, will ring hollow.
Notable Quotes
It is concerning that Indecopi La Libertad reaches conclusions about the alleged causes of the roof collapse without any official analysis or technical study, and without even having accessed the accident site or conducted its own inspections.— Real Plaza statement
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Indecopi issue a fine without conducting its own technical investigation?
That's the crux of Real Plaza's complaint. Indecopi relied on existing evidence and testimony, but the mall argues that's not enough—that a regulator making safety conclusions should have its own engineers on site, its own structural analysis.
Did Real Plaza actually do anything wrong in the emergency response?
The company says no—that it mobilized quickly, helped the injured, and negotiated compensation with almost everyone affected. But Indecopi apparently disagreed with how it handled victim support and prevention measures beforehand.
What about the confidentiality breach the mall mentioned?
An Indecopi official discussed the case with university students. Real Plaza sees that as evidence of carelessness, maybe even bias—that the regulator wasn't treating the matter with the seriousness it deserved.
Is the mall likely to reopen soon?
No. The municipal government has said there's no chance until the fiscal investigation concludes. The building is still sealed. It's been nearly a year.
Who decides whether the roof actually failed due to negligence or just bad luck?
That's what the fiscal courts are trying to determine. Indecopi jumped ahead of that process, which is what Real Plaza objects to most.