Regarding the process of forfeiture of ownership of more than 400 commercial premises of the Lili Pink brand for alleged money laundering and smuggling that would exceed more than 730,000 million pesos, it was confirmed that the administration of the seized assets was assumed by the Special Assets Society (SAE).
From the entity they confirmed that The administration includes 405 stores, 40 properties, vehicles and a company with presence in 59 citiesand one of the main objectives is to ensure commercial sustainability and protect the labor rights of more than 2,000 employees during the transition.
The SAE confirmed that investigations revealed that the company had used a network of fictitious companies to enter merchandise irregularly and simulate legal operations; Despite this, the State’s intention is that the rights of employees are respected, so the stores will remain open while the judicial process progresses.
Because this is not the first time that the State intervenes in a recognized company in Colombia, the case is compared to what was registered at the time with Drogas La Rebaja, which was used by the Cali cartel to launder their assets.
In this regard, in dialogue with Infobae ColombiaJulio César Rivera, professor at the Legal Clinic of the Universidad Politécnico Grancolombiano, recalled that a process of asset forfeiture is not an automatic sanction or an early sentence.
“This is a judicial action of a property nature that is initiated by the Attorney General’s Office before specialized judges, with the objective of determining whether the assets were acquired or used with money of illicit origin. That is, what is being discussed is not the commercial activity itself, but the origin of the resources.”
Rivera anticipated that while the case is open, which could be several years, the regular process includes the Sociedad de Activos Especiales (SAE) being the provisional administrator of the assets, not the definitive owner.
“It is key to understand that this administration has a fundamental principle: to protect the economic and social value of the assets while defining the legal situation, and at the same time guarantee the rights of third parties in good faith.. Among these third parties are, for example: workers, whose labor rights must be preserved; creditors, who have current contractual obligations; landlords of premises, who must continue receiving fees while the establishments are operating; and the suppliers and contractors who are not part of the judicial litigation,” explained the teacher.
The teacher recalled that this same thing was recorded after the intervention against La Rebaja Drugs, which continued to operate because it was confirmed that the company generated profits without having to depend on the illegal assets of its owners.
“In the case of Lili Pink, something similar happens, since the intervention does not imply the closure of the company, nor a declaration of guilt, but rather a temporary administration until a judge determines whether the Prosecutor’s Office is right in its accusations or if, on the contrary, the budgets for the forfeiture of ownership are not configured.”
Regarding a possible outcome in this case, the expert mentioned that it could end with the assets in favor of the State, since in these processes it is not usually intervened without conclusive evidence.
“If the judge agrees with the Prosecutor’s Office, the assets will definitively pass to the State; If not, the company can be returned to its owners. Precisely for this reason, it is a provisional and guaranteeing measure, which seeks a balance between the persecution of illicit economies and the protection of the real economy, employment and the rights of third parties.
Finally, Rivera confirmed that the Lili Pink stores will not be closed, since the administration assumed by the SAE confirms that it is a functional company.
“In conclusion, Lili Pink can continue operating because the Colombian legal system favors business continuity under controlled administration, while the judicial process is resolved, understanding that Closing a viable company generates greater damage than managing it correctly during that definition period”.
