By Israel López
Special for El Inmobiliario
Within the framework of the criminal investigations related to the so-called SeNaSa case, in which alleged acts of administrative corruption and money laundering are being investigated, the analysis of certain real estate operations has become especially relevant. These operations would have served, directly or indirectly, for the acquisition, enjoyment or simulation of use of real estate, especially a penthouse worth 44 million pesos, possibly acquired with resources of illicit origin, according to the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Dominican Republic.
In this context, legal attention focuses on the role that construction companies and potential real estate agents involved in these transactions may have played, particularly when these transactions present atypical characteristics, lack of economic logic, or disproportion between the value of the property and the declared financial capacity of the acquirer or beneficiary.
Obligated parties and applicable regulatory framework.
The Dominican regime for the prevention of money laundering and the financing of
terrorism is structured, primarily, around Law No. 155-17, which establishes
a comprehensive system of obligations, controls and sanctions designed to prevent the
economic and financial system from being used to legitimize assets derived from
illicit activities.
This regulation defines the predicate offenses, the concepts of suspicious operation
and due diligence, as well as the responsibilities that fall on those who participate
professionally in high economic impact transactions.
Within this framework, the law incorporates the figure of the so-called non-
financial obligated subjects, among which are construction companies,
real estate agents, lawyers and notaries, when they intervene in operations of purchase,
sale, rental or constitution of real rights over real estate.
These actors are legally compelled to implement compliance programs,
properly identify their clients and ultimate beneficiaries, analyze the origin of the funds involved, and report those transactions that, by their nature or circumstances, are unusual or lack reasonable economic justification.
Due diligence and politically exposed persons.
Current regulations mandate the application of the due diligence principle as the cornerstone
of the preventative system. This principle is implemented, first and foremost, through
customer due diligence procedures, which involve verifying identity,
understanding the declared economic activity, and assessing the consistency between
known income and the value of the real estate transaction.
This due diligence must be strengthened when the client or ultimate beneficiary qualifies as a
politically exposed person, that is, when they hold or have held
relevant public office or maintain close ties with those who do. In these cases, the law
requires a higher level of scrutiny, aimed at mitigating the risk of funds derived
from acts of corruption being channeled through the real estate market.
Likewise, obligated entities must have internal mechanisms for the detection and
reporting of suspicious transactions, as well as policies for the preservation of records and
supporting documentation for the periods established by law (10 years), in order to
guarantee the traceability of transactions and facilitate possible criminal investigations.
Criminal liability
From a criminal law perspective, Law No. 155-17 defines money laundering as an independent crime and penalizes any person who, knowingly or through willful ignorance, participates in acts intended to conceal, disguise, or give the appearance of legality to assets derived from serious offenses, including administrative corruption. The penalties provided for include prison sentences and significant fines, the severity of which increases when habitual, organized, or linked to criminal structures is verified
Additionally, the Dominican Penal Code includes
related criminal offenses, such as criminal association, fraud, embezzlement, and the use of
false documents, which can be charged against those who facilitate, conceal, or cooperate
in carrying out operations intended to disguise the illicit origin of the funds
used in real estate transactions.
In this sense, when the conduct of a construction company or a real estate agent
transcends mere negligence and there is evidence of conscious participation, active advice or
collaboration in asset concealment schemes, they can be prosecuted
criminally as perpetrators or accomplices.
Liability of legal entities and administrative sanctions
Dominican law expressly recognizes the criminal and administrative liability
of legal entities. Consequently, construction companies and
real estate agencies can be subject to sanctions ranging from substantial fines to
the suspension or cancellation of licenses, the prohibition of engaging in certain activities,
the closure of establishments, and even the dissolution of the company, when
their participation in or tolerance of conduct constituting money laundering is proven.
Similarly, failure to comply with prevention, reporting and due
diligence obligations may result in administrative sanctions independent of
criminal liability, directed both against the entity and against its directors, legal representatives and
compliance officers.
Conclusion: Legal impact for real estate agents and construction companies
The investigations related to the SeNaSa case highlight the strategic role
the real estate sector plays in money laundering schemes.
Dominican law establishes severe consequences for those who, through
relevant action or omission, facilitate this type of conduct, imposing a heightened duty
of care and oversight on professionals involved in real estate transactions.
The determination of responsibility, both criminal, civil and administrative, will depend on
the accreditation of knowledge, participation or non-compliance with
legal prevention obligations, elements that will be assessed on a case-by-case basis by the
competent authorities.
