This article analyzes whether the requirement of a prior criminal conviction—introduced by Law No. 32326 as a procedural prerequisite for initiating asset forfeiture proceedings—constitutes a violation of the principle of procedural autonomy recognized in Section 2, Subsection 3, of the Preliminary Title of Decree-Law No. 1373. A dogmatic-comparative method was employed, which allowed for an examination of its nature and purpose, and a comparison of Peruvian legislation with the models in Mexico, Colombia, and the United States. The results show that asset forfeiture constitutes an in rem proceeding that is autonomous and compatible with constitutional guarantees, provided it is governed by well-defined rules of evidence. It is concluded that the requirement of a final and unappealed criminal judgment creates an indirect dependence on the criminal proceedings, alters the procedure’s autonomous design, and undermines its effectiveness in recovering illicit assets. Therefore, this requirement should be revised, and greater emphasis should be placed on the evaluation of circumstantial evidence, the protection of third parties acting in good faith, and the transparency regarding seized assets.