{"id":12663,"date":"2026-10-14T15:11:00","date_gmt":"2026-10-14T15:11:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dmklawyers.com\/?p=12663"},"modified":"2026-10-14T15:11:05","modified_gmt":"2026-10-14T15:11:05","slug":"compliance-from-minimalism-to-alarmism","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dmklawyers.com\/en\/compliance-from-minimalism-to-alarmism\/","title":{"rendered":"Compliance: From Minimalism to Alarmism"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
As November 5 fast approaches, pursuant to Article 31 of Law No. 44-26, Articles 8 through 11 of Organic Law No. 74-25 – which establishes the Criminal Code of the Dominican Republic – will come into force with respect to the criminal liability of legal entities. This has prompted a wave of publications, conferences, events, and self-proclaimed Compliance \u201cexperts,\u201d whose messages range from warnings that anyone could face prison to reassurances that there is nothing to worry about. In most cases, the discussion has been framed around two opposing and equally misguided extremes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On the one hand, we have the minimalist approach \u201ctouting\u201d a general compliance program tailored to your sector but not to your company. Generalized texts, regulations that fail to consider the reality of a business and do not seek a balance between control, supervision, and the operation of the business. Within this minimalist approach, there is also a strand that has limited itself to addressing Compliance<\/em> from the criminal prism, ignoring the existence of reputational and operational risks and general control and supervision systems that are not limited to covering criminal offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n