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 crime prevention models, a legal tool, quieter but with a significant impact on assets, has begun to transform the legal landscape: Law No. 340-22 on the Forfeiture of Illicit Assets. This regulation is no longer a future warning, but a palpable reality following the recent issuance of the first asset forfeiture ruling in the country.
On June 18, 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the Court of Appeal of the Judicial Department of La Vega issued judgment no. 203-2026-SSEN 00234, setting a historic precedent by upholding an action promoted by the Asset Forfeiture Unit of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. This milestone underscores that corporate analysis must go beyond traditional criminal liability and consider the vulnerability of its assets.
An approach beyond the criminal
Asset forfeiture, unlike classical criminal law which focuses on a person’s conduct and culpability, is an in rem action, meaning it falls directly upon the assets. Its objective is not the deprivation of liberty, but to determine the legal relationship of an asset with illicit acts. The law establishes that this action is autonomous, real, and proprietary, and may proceed even after the death of the owner or within a twenty-year statute of limitations.
The autonomy of this figure cannot mean an absence of constitutional guarantees against such a magnitude of state intervention regarding property rights. This will, without a doubt, be one of the most intense debates in the courts over the coming years.
Reframing business risk
Law No. 340-22 covers a wide range of crimes, from smuggling and money laundering to financial and high-tech crimes. For companies, the risk has mutated: it is no longer enough to audit whether an employee can criminally compromise the firm. Now, it is imperative to question whether any asset—vehicles, real estate, accounts, or equipment—is being used by third parties, clients, or suppliers in activities that could lead to asset forfeiture.
- Nature of the action: It is an autonomous figure independent of any criminal proceeding.
- Asset scope: It can affect lawfully acquired assets if they are used as instruments to commit illicit acts.
- Connection with Compliance: The control of assets and the knowledge of those related to them is now a fundamental piece of regulatory compliance.
Lessons from the first sentence
The case that gave rise to the first ruling exemplifies this reality: three vehicles, possibly acquired lawfully, were subject to asset forfeiture after being used as instruments in a cigarette smuggling operation. This demonstrates that asset forfeiture not only pursues the proceeds of a crime, but also the means used to execute it.
This new reality forces companies to integrate the protection of their assets into their compliance programs, aligning with anti-money laundering regulations such as Law No. 155-17. The convergence between corporate criminal law, the anti-money laundering system, and asset forfeiture requires a comprehensive view of risk management to prevent an organization from losing its assets due to poor management of its relationships or the improper use of its resources.
