The Center for the Collection of Fines learnt that a criminal, from whom attempts to collect compensation for the victims and the State failed, is the sole shareholder and director of a company in which favor compensation was awarded by the State.
The Court decided to perform a reverse piercing of the corporate veil and attribute the company's right to its owners. A reverse piercing of the corporate veil occurs when the Court decides to attribute a right of the company to a shareholder as oppose to the attribution of the company's debt to a shareholder, as occurs in a 'regular' piercing of the corporate veil occurs when the Court decides to attribute a right of the company to a shareholder as oppose to the attribution. In contrast to a classic piercing of the corporate veil, the execution of which is contingent on the existence of specific grounds from a closed list stipulated in the law, in a reverse piercing of the corporate veil the Court has broad discretion and is entitled to carry it out when it finds it just and right to do so. Here, we are dealing with a sole proprietorship company that formed a single economic unit with the criminal, served him for his criminal activity, and had no activity since its establishment. Hence, it is unreasonable for the State to compensate the criminal while he does not pay his debt to the public coffers.