Trujillo’s descendants claim millionaire sum from Banco de Reservas
The family of dictator Rafael Leónidas Trujillo Molina has once again found itself at the center of public opinion after initiating a legal process against Banco de Reservas. Rafael José Ramón Trujillo Lovatón and Yolanda Altagracia Trujillo Lovatón, children of the former president, are demanding the return of a deposit made more than seven decades ago which, according to their calculations, has generated millions in interest.
Financial claim details
The origin of the dispute dates back to February 4, 1950, the date on which a deposit of 2.3 million dollars was made in the name of Yolanda Lina Lovatón Pittaluga, mother of the plaintiffs. The heirs maintain that, after the passing of the years and the accumulation of interest, the capital currently amounts to a figure exceeding 100 million dollars.
To support its petition before the courts, the plaintiff has submitted documentation that includes:
- Bank statement number 2117, which would certify the existence of the funds.
- An official communication that supposedly authorized the delivery of the money to Lovatón Pittaluga after Trujillo’s death.
- Legal calculations that place the total amount, including compensation for damages, at approximately 103 million dollars.
The State’s position and the historical context
Banco de Reservas has questioned the legitimacy of this claim, arguing that the funds originally belonged to the dictator and not his wife. This position aligns with the legal reality after 1961, the year in which the Dominican State, through Law 5785, declared all assets, credits, and obligations linked to Trujillo and his immediate family circle as national property.
This case revives one of the most sensitive chapters in the recent history of the Dominican Republic, by confronting the inheritance rights claimed by the descendants with the confiscation laws enacted after the end of the 31-year dictatorship.
The controversy has been pointed out by various sectors of society, who consider the heirs’ claims to be inappropriate, arguing that said resources are part of the state assets that were recovered after the fall of the regime.
