What to Know
As Lochte's version of events began to shift, many Brazilians became annoyed that a false story about crime drew so much attention.
The scandal drew international headlines and grew to overshadow the final days of the games.
Lochte does not have to appear in person to defend himself.
The prosecution of U.S. swimmer Ryan Lochte for filing a false police report during the 2016 Olympics is back on after a Brazilian court decision this week.
During the games in Rio de Janeiro, the 12-time Olympic medalist told NBC that he and fellow swimmers were robbed at gunpoint in a taxi by men with police badges as they returned to the Olympic Village from a party.
But prosecutors said Lochte invented the story to cover up the swimmers' vandalism of a gas station and an ensuing confrontation with security guards. The confrontation was captured by surveillance cameras at the gas station.
Lochte later acknowledged he was intoxicated at the time and his behavior led to the confrontation.
The initial claim appeared to confirm widespread fears before the Olympics that the event would be marred by rising crime rates in Rio de Janeiro, which has long struggled with violence.
As Lochte's version of events began to shift, many Brazilians became annoyed that a false story about crime drew so much attention, when the city had hosted the games without major problems.
The scandal drew international headlines and grew to overshadow the final days of the games. Lochte ended up serving a 10-month suspension from the U.S. national swim team for his behavior.
Last year, a court dismissed the case against Lochte, but the Superior Court of Justice reversed that decision Tuesday. Prosecutor Rodrigo de Almeida Maia said Thursday that the next step is for Lochte's lawyers to present their defense. Lochte does not have to appear in person to defend himself, de Almeida Maia said.
Steve Lochte, the swimmer's father, said by telephone that he had no comment and directed questions to his son or his son's lawyers.
Jeff Ostrow, a lawyer who has represented Lochte in the past, did not immediately respond to an email and a voicemail message seeking comment. It was not clear if he would represent Lochte in this case.