Asset forfeiture: The new challenge for corporate compliance in the Dominican Republic
While the Dominican business sector focuses its attention on the new Penal Code and the implementation of regulatory compliance programs, a legal figure with significant patrimonial impact has begun to gain ground: Law No. 340-22 on Asset Forfeiture of Illicit Goods. This tool, although silent, is transforming risk management in organizations.
Over the last few months, boards of directors and senior executives have prioritized topics such as the criminal liability of legal entities and risk matrices. However, asset forfeiture represents a front that cannot be ignored, especially following the recent issuance of the first ruling under this regulation in the country.
A key judicial precedent
On June 18, 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Judicial Department of La Vega marked a milestone by issuing judgment no. 203-2026-SSEN 00234. This ruling, derived from an action filed by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, demonstrates that the law has ceased to be a theoretical threat and has become an operational reality that companies must integrate into their prevention strategy.
The autonomy of the asset forfeiture action must not mean an absence of constitutional guarantees; this will be one of the great legal debates of the coming years.
Reconfiguring the risk map
Unlike traditional criminal law, which focuses on the conduct and responsibility of the person, asset forfeiture is exercised in rem, that is, directly against the assets. This raises fundamental questions for any organization:
- Can an employee, supplier, or client use a company asset for illicit purposes that compromise corporate assets?
- What is the relationship between a specific asset and an illicit act provided for by law?
- How does the misuse of a lawful asset affect its ownership?
Law No. 340-22 is extensive in its grounds, covering everything from drug trafficking and corruption to tax crimes, smuggling, and financial crimes. It is crucial to understand that forfeiture can apply not only to the proceeds of the illicit act but also to those assets that have served as instruments for its execution, regardless of their initial lawful origin.
Compliance: Beyond the criminal aspect
The case that led to the first ruling in the country is illustrative: three vehicles were subject to asset forfeiture after being used for the transport of contraband cigarettes. Although the vehicles were acquired legally, their use in an illicit activity turned them into instruments of crime, exposing them to judicial action.
This scenario forces companies to broaden their vision of compliance. It is no longer enough to supervise human conduct; asset control is now a necessity. The convergence between Law 155-17 against Money Laundering, corporate criminal law, and the new asset forfeiture regulations requires a comprehensive strategy where due diligence and asset monitoring are fundamental pillars to protect the sustainability of any business.
