DIAN may seize goods when, in a prior, simultaneous or post-clearance control, it finds there is no economic and financial capacity for the operation or that the lawful origin of the funds was not shown, and that ground must rest on prior studies and evidence. Ligal reconstructs the proof of your funds, files the objections brief on time and handles the defense from start to finish, including the criminal risk if it arises, with lawyers, accountants and ex-DIAN experience.
Also on WhatsApp: +57 319 272 9164. Bogotá · Calle 99 7A-51, Of. 206. In person and remote.
In practice it is called “economic solvency”, but the text in force is Law 2586 of 2026, in force since its promulgation (June 19, 2026), which repealed Decree-Law 920 of 2023, declared unconstitutional by ruling C-072 of 2025. Its Article 7, item 8.2, regulates the precautionary measure for economic and financial capacity and/or lawful origin of funds: in prior, simultaneous and post-clearance controls it applies when the consignee, addressee, importer or exporter does not show that capacity or that origin. The law defines it as the conditions that show the customs authority that the resources support one hundred percent (100%) of the foreign trade operation, that they are real and lawfully supported. DIAN may query databases, make on-site visits, take evidence and request information, and must take into account the particulars of the negotiation, the operation and the economic activity. For legal entities and individual merchants, the proof is separate, complete financial statements, certified by the legal representative or the accountant and/or audited by the statutory auditor, for the last 2 years, and a certificate of lawful origin of funds signed by the legal representative and the accountant or statutory auditor; if they were set up in the same period, the opening statement of financial position. For an individual who is not a merchant, sufficient and appropriate documentary evidence. The user may provide any information it considers useful and DIAN must assess it.
The conclusion is recorded in a record of facts: if the capacity is not shown, seizure applies; if it is shown, the precautionary measure is lifted immediately, and the verification is valid during the fiscal year in which it was made. The seizure itself is a ground under Article 26, item 6: the nonexistence of the address registered in the RUT, the lack of economic and financial capacity for the operation or the failure to show the lawful origin of the funds, “supported by prior studies and evidence”. If those prior studies and evidence do not exist, the precautionary measure of items 8.1 and 8.2 of Article 7 must be applied first. Forfeiture proceedings apply only when a ground for seizure in the law is met (Art. 25). Against the seizure, the objections brief is filed within 15 business days after notification of the seizure record (Art. 45), with proof of lawful entry or possession or a request for the useful, conducive and pertinent evidence; the evidence order is issued within 20 business days after that period expires (Art. 46). Legalization of goods that fell into a ground for seizure is provided for in Article 290 of Decree 1165 of 2019, but the paragraph of Article 319 of the Penal Code warns that legalization of the goods does not extinguish the criminal action. For the general procedure, see /decomiso-aprehension-dian and /aduanas.
Key points on defense for economic solvency
Ligal reviews the record, the precautionary measure and DIAN's support, reconstructs economic capacity and the origin of funds with accounting and banking evidence, and defends by the route that suits your case, without promising results.
01
We verify whether the seizure rests on prior studies and evidence, whether the precautionary measure of Article 7 was applied first when it applied, which documents were requested and which particulars of the negotiation, the operation and the economic activity the authority failed to consider. That review defines the line of defense.
02
We assemble the proof required by Article 7, item 8.2: financial statements for the last 2 years, certified or audited, the certificate of lawful origin of funds and, where needed, bank support, invoices, contracts and the trail of payments to the supplier. If the party is an individual who is not a merchant, sufficient and appropriate documentary evidence.
03
We draft the objections brief with its requirements (signature of the interested party or attorney, specific grounds, an address for notifications and, if the goods were bought in the country, the name and address of the seller), attach the evidence or request the useful, conducive and pertinent evidence, and follow up on the evidence order.
04
We assess whether the legalization under Article 290 of Decree 1165 of 2019 is worthwhile, what the additional contribution of resources required by 2026 DIAN doctrine involves and what happens with the criminal risk, because legalizing does not extinguish the criminal action. Ligal handles the case from start to finish, including if a complaint is filed.
A seizure-for-solvency case is decided between the legal argument on the authority's studies and the accounting proof of the origin of funds.
Director · Ex-DIAN tax lawyer
Leads the legal strategy and representation before the customs authority: decides whether to object, legalize or combine both routes, how to contest the ground and how to protect the client if there is criminal risk.
Accountant · Quantification and traceability
Reconstructs economic and financial capacity and the origin of the funds with financial statements, bank statements and records, and quantifies duties and legalization scenarios.
Certified public accountants
Prepare accounting support and certifications, and technical analyses that serve as evidence before DIAN and the courts.
Legalization may recover the goods, but it does not extinguish the criminal action and may require paying duties and showing additional resources. Before deciding, we compare objecting and legalizing.
Financial statements, certificates or contracts made after the operation just to respond can aggravate the case. We use only authentic proof of the origin of the funds.
Each case depends on the facts, the support and the authority's studies. We assess the possibilities frankly before filing the objections brief.
When DIAN seizes goods for lack of economic capacity or origin of funds, Ligal handles the defense before the customs authority, from the precautionary measure and the objections brief through the appeals and courts that apply, and also the criminal defense if a complaint is filed. Juan Santiago Rodríguez Prieto, an ex-DIAN tax lawyer, leads the strategy alongside accountant Jeysson Pulido and LIGAL Auditores (certified public accountants). The team, with lawyers, accountants and direct experience inside DIAN, handles real cases of audits, enforced collection and tax and customs litigation.
Please note: no result is guaranteed; each case depends on the facts, the support and the authority's studies.
Director
Juan Santiago Rodríguez Prieto
Tax lawyer · Ex-DIAN
The 15-business-day period for the objections brief runs from notification of the seizure record. We assess your case within 48 business hours. Use the form or open Diagnosis.
01
TodayWe review the record of facts, the seizure record or the precautionary measure, the import declaration or purchase support, the financial statements and the payments of the operation.
02
48 business hWe verify whether prior studies and evidence exist, what proof of capacity and origin of funds you have and what is missing, and assess whether to object, legalize or combine both routes.
03
ImmediateWe define the evidence, draft the brief with its requirements and who files it, within the period counted from notification.
Frequently asked questions
It exists as a ground. Article 26, item 6, of Law 2586 of 2026 provides for seizure and forfeiture when, in a prior, simultaneous or post-clearance control, the lack of economic and financial capacity for the operation or the failure to show the lawful origin of the funds is determined, but it requires that it be “supported by prior studies and evidence”. If those studies do not exist, the precautionary measure of items 8.1 and 8.2 of Article 7 must be applied first. That the ground exists does not mean a specific seizure is well supported: that is reviewed case by case.
Under Article 7, item 8.2, they are the conditions showing that the resources support one hundred percent (100%) of the foreign trade operation, that they are real and lawfully supported. Legal entities and individual merchants prove it with separate, complete financial statements, certified by the legal representative or the accountant and/or audited by the statutory auditor, for the last 2 years, and a certificate of lawful origin of funds signed by the legal representative and the accountant or statutory auditor (if set up in the same period, the opening statement of financial position). An individual who is not a merchant provides sufficient and appropriate documentary evidence.
Under Article 7, item 8.2, the conclusion is recorded in a record of facts; if the capacity is shown, the precautionary measure is lifted immediately, and the verification is valid during the fiscal year in which it was made. If it is not shown, seizure applies. DIAN must take into account the particulars of the negotiation, the operation and the economic activity, and must assess the information the user provides.
The objections brief is filed within 15 business days after notification of the seizure record (Art. 45 of Law 2586 of 2026). It must be signed by the interested party or attorney, state specific grounds and an address for notifications, and, if the goods were bought in the country, the name and address of the seller; otherwise it is deemed not filed. With it you attach proof of lawful entry or possession, or request the useful, conducive and pertinent evidence. The evidence order is issued within 20 business days after the period expires (Art. 46).
Article 290 of Decree 1165 of 2019 provides for the legalization of presented goods that fell into a ground for seizure, by curing the ground. Under 2026 DIAN doctrine, for the ground in Article 26, item 6, it applies if the goods were presented, restrictions are met, duties are paid (and the redemption amount where applicable) and an additional contribution of resources supporting 100% of the operation is shown. Before legalizing, it is worth analyzing whether objecting is more suitable and what happens with the criminal risk.
Forfeiture proceedings apply only when a ground for seizure in the law is met (Art. 25 of Law 2586 of 2026). That is why the core dispute is whether the ground in Article 26, item 6, was met and whether it is supported by prior studies and evidence. If the seizure is confirmed and the goods are not legalized, forfeiture is the risk.
It depends on the facts. The paragraph of Article 319 of the Penal Code says that legalization of the goods does not extinguish the criminal action, so paying and legalizing does not by itself close a criminal risk if there is one, for example when smuggling above the legal SMMLV threshold is in question. Seizure for economic capacity is an administrative ground; the criminal analysis is separate. That is why it matters to have a single defense that sees both fronts. See /contrabando-favorecimiento-delito-aduanero.
The record of facts and the seizure record, the declaration or purchase support for the goods, invoices and payments to the supplier, bank statements, financial statements for the last 2 years and the certification of the origin of funds, together with contracts and correspondence of the negotiation. Consistency among those documents is what supports economic capacity. Support must be authentic and contemporaneous with the operation.
Ligal is a firm specialized in tax and customs law. Under the direction of Juan Santiago Rodríguez Prieto, an ex-DIAN tax lawyer, together with accountant Jeysson Pulido and LIGAL Auditores (certified public accountants), we combine the legal argument on the ground with the accounting proof of the origin of funds, and we handle the defense from start to finish, including the criminal side if it arises. Our work is backed by 5.0 / 5 on Google with 36 reviews: https://share.google/VVzMvULrOj8Mj52Au. The team handles real cases of audits, enforced collection and tax and customs litigation. No result is guaranteed.
Free. Attach the record of facts, the seizure record or the precautionary measure, the financial statements and the support of the operation. We assess the ground, the evidence and the strategy.