For years, hundreds of companies in the construction sector operated under the shadow of a question without a clear answer: are we subject to Law 155-17? Resolution CONCLAFIT-2025-02 has just provided the answer the market needed, and it changes the regulatory landscape of the sector.
Does your construction company have to report AML/CFT operations just because its corporate purpose mentions "real estate"? If you answered "yes," I have bad news: you were wrong. And good news: you just found out in time.
Resolution CONCLAFIT-2025-02 has just put an end to months of regulatory confusion. Not because the law was poorly written, but because we were misinterpreting it. And that difference, believe me, can cost you more than you imagine.
The problem was never law 155-17, it was that we didn't know how to read it correctly.
The question no one could answer clearly. Since Law 155-17 on the prevention of money laundering came into effect, many people have repeatedly asked themselves: Is it enough for my business registration to say "construction and sale of real estate" for me to automatically be subject to these controls? Do I have to implement all the AML/CFT controls even if my company only builds and never sells?
And the answer many gave was: "better safe than sorry, comply with everything just in case.".
That "just in case" approach cost hundreds of companies unnecessary time, resources, and procedures. Because over-compliance out of fear isn't smart prevention. It's over-regulation driven by panic.
Resolution CONCLAFIT-2025-02 finally did what should have been done from the beginning: clarify without beating around the bush.
What the resolution actually says (without the legal jargon that confuses you)
Let me put it simply:
The resolution didn't invent anything new. It didn't create obligations that didn't exist before. What it did was tell you exactly when the rules that were already there apply. And the difference is huge.
The key point is this: your corporate purpose doesn't define whether you're subject to obligations. What defines it is your actual activity. It doesn't matter what your articles of incorporation say. What matters is what you do in practice.
Do you build buildings but another company sells them? You are not automatically subject to these regulations.
Do you develop projects that are then transferred by your partners or third parties? No.
Does your actual business never include buying, selling, or real estate brokerage? AML/CFT obligations are not triggered simply because your company's purpose mentions "real estate.".
Now, if you are a real estate agent, broker, or intermediary who facilitates transactions and charges commissions for doing so, the obligations apply even if you never touch a penny of the transaction.
Because the risk isn't just in handling money. It's in bringing the parties together. This distinction should have been clear from day one. It wasn't. And that's why we needed this resolution.
Why this is not “making the system more flexible”
Let me anticipate what some will say: "They're relaxing controls. They're making it easier to launder money." False.
What CONCLAFIT is doing is aligning regulation with what the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recommends: a risk-based approach, not a formal one.
As a lawyer with 20 years of experience defending real estate legal security, I have seen what happens when rules are applied without criteria: companies spending money on compliance they don't need, others confused about what they should really be doing, and a system that loses effectiveness because it disperses resources where they are not needed.
When an authority clarifies, it doesn't weaken the system. It strengthens it.
Applying controls indiscriminately doesn't improve prevention. It only creates an illusion of prevention while resources are diluted. Effective prevention requires regulatory intelligence: knowing where the real risk lies and focusing efforts there.
This resolution came about because industry associations such as the Association of Real Estate Agents and Companies (AEI), the Dominican Association of Housing Builders and Developers (ACOPROVI), and the Association of Dominican Trust Companies (ASOFIDOM), with technical support from RMC – Risk Management & Compliance, asked the right questions, and CONCLAFIT responded with maturity. That is what separates serious markets from improvised ones.
What does this mean for your operation (in real terms)?
If you're a builder who only builds, you've just saved yourself months of unnecessary procedures. If you're an agent who acts as an intermediary, you now know for sure why your obligations apply. If you're a developer who sells, you've always been obligated, and nothing has changed for you.
True prevention lies not in imposing more rules, but in better applying the ones that already exist.
This doesn't reduce surveillance. It focuses it. It acknowledges that not all activities or actors have the same level of exposure. And that pretending they do is, frankly, irresponsible.
The formal real estate sector is not the risk. It is the most strategic ally in the fight against money laundering. Because when the rules are clear and proportionate, compliance ceases to be a burden and becomes a competitive advantage.
The mistake we were making (and how to correct it)
For months, companies have been making regulatory decisions based on broad interpretations, implementing procedures out of fear, and over-complying "just in case." This approach comes at a cost: it distracts from where the real risks lie.
When the law is properly understood, compliance becomes easier. And when compliance is easier, more businesses do it right.
Resolution CONCLAFIT-2025-02 didn't make things more flexible. It perfected the system. It made it more technical, fairer, and more aligned with international standards and the realities of the sector. Because good regulation isn't about more regulation. It's about intelligent regulation.
The question you can't avoid now
Was your company complying based on its actual activity or on what its corporate purpose states? Are your AML/CFT procedures calibrated according to the risk you actually manage or based on a generic "just in case" interpretation?
This ruling gave you something many regulators don't: clarity without ambiguity. The question is whether you'll use it to adjust your compliance proportionally and effectively, or whether you'll remain in the gray area of "it's better to err on the side of caution.".
Because in a maturing market, understanding the rules isn't a competitive advantage. It's a requirement for survival.
And now that the rules are clear, you no longer have an excuse for not understanding them.
