Prior to the tragedy, Jet Set “eliminated a key column,” according to the MP

The manager and administrator of Jet Set are accused of committing involuntary manslaughter and involuntary beatings and wounding to the detriment of the 235 people who died and the more than 180 who were injured when the nightclub’s roof collapsed.

The owners of Jet Set “significantly altered the structure of the nightclub without technical supervision,” according to the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s indictment against Antonio Espaillat and his sister, Maribel.

“The nightclub, originally a movie theater, underwent a change of use that involved inadequate structural adaptation,” prosecutors said of the incident, which resulted in 235 deaths and 180 injuries.

“A key column in the structure was subsequently removed, significantly affecting the roof’s stability, without any professional assessment or permit to support the modification, demonstrating high-risk behavior,” they note.

A team composed of Deputy Attorney General Wilson Camacho, head of the General Directorate of Prosecution of the Public Ministry, and the National District Prosecutor, Rosalba Ramos, and composed of Héctor García, Magalys Sánchez, Emmanuel Ramírez, Rosa Ysabel Mejía, Miguel Collado and Vladimir Viloria signs the document deposited with the Judicial Office of Permanent Attention Services of the National District.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office establishes that the defendants violated the criminal offenses contemplated and sanctioned in Articles 319 and 320 of the Dominican Penal Code, which punish involuntary manslaughter, as well as beatings and involuntary wounds.

The Jet Set roof collapsed on the night of April 8, 2025, as singer Rubby Pérez, who also passed away, was performing at a merengue party with his orchestra.

Following the incident at the nightclub located in El Portal Plaza, Kilometer 6 of Independencia Avenue, in the National District, the Attorney General of the Republic, Yeni Berenice Reynoso, arrived at the scene and instructed the General Prosecution Directorate of the Public Ministry to take measures to further the investigation, including securing the scene and debris to conduct an on-site expert appraisal.

Once the rescue work was completed, the Public Ministry proceeded to preserve the debris for the purpose of technical expertise.

In compliance with this provision, the director of the Emergency Operations Center (COE), retired General Juan Manuel Méndez García, once the rescue efforts for survivors and the recovery of the deceased’s bodies were completed, proceeded to hand over the scene to the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

As part of the investigation, the Public Ministry team appointed experts Leonardo de Jesús Reyes Madera (earthquake-resistant engineer), Eduardo A. Fierro (president of BFP Engineers), and Máximo José Corominas Quezada (pathological engineer) to conduct the technical study on the causes of the collapse of the roof of the Jet Set Club building, owned by the commercial entity Inversiones E y L SRL and run by siblings Antonio and Maribel Espaillat López.

The Public Ministry’s investigations determined that the Espaillat López brothers were conducting a negligent business operation that put hundreds of lives at risk.

Prosecutors charge that for years, the Jet Set Club “operated with systematic and gross negligence in the maintenance and structural adaptation of its facilities, putting the lives of its customers and employees at risk.”

Both defendants also deliberately failed to comply with building and land use regulations. As principal managers, they permitted and arranged for major renovations, adaptations, and expansions to the Jet Set Club structure “without obtaining the required permits or conducting the necessary structural assessments from the Ministry of Public Works and Communications (MOPC) or the Mayor’s Office of the National District.”

These renovations included the installation of a stage, lighting systems, bars, and VIP areas, “demonstrating a complete disregard for building and safety laws,” prosecutors added.

Furthermore, the Jet Set executives excessively and progressively loaded the nightclub’s roof with multiple heavy elements, including technical booths, ducts, large-volume air conditioning units (six air conditioners weighing 15 and 20 tons each), and water tanks. All of this “without conducting any study to guarantee the structure’s capacity to support such weight.”

The defendants resorted to inadequate palliative solutions solely to save resources and were always fully aware of the roof’s problems. Antonio Espaillat and Maribel Espaillat had direct and constant knowledge of the serious issues with the roof “through visual reports (photos and videos) and communications from their own employees.”

Despite these explicit warnings about falling debris and imminent danger, they chose to ignore them.”

Prosecutors determined that nightclub executives prioritized business operations over the safety of employees and customers.

“The defendant Maribel Espaillat, aware of a falling debris incident hours before the collapse and in response to a request to suspend the activity, refused to do so, citing the absence of the defendant Antonio Espaillat López and the impossibility of stopping the party, prioritizing economic gain over the safety and lives of people,” they state.

“The chain of actions and omissions by the defendants, including the lack of permits, structural modifications without technical basis, overloading the roof, deficient ‘repairs,’ and failure to heed hazard warnings, demonstrates a systematic pattern of irresponsibility and negligence that caused 235 deaths and more than 180 injuries,” the Public Prosecutor’s Office said.

It indicates that technical appraisals have confirmed critical findings, such as the absence of an essential column, the poor anchoring of beams, and the lack of supporting masonry walls, which directly validate the structural failures attributable to the actions and omissions of the nightclub’s management.

The Public Prosecutor’s Office maintains that it has gathered compelling evidence demonstrating that the events of April 8 “would have been entirely avoidable if the defendants had acted according to the law and valued life over money.”

Furthermore, the defendants intimidated witnesses in the trial “with the aim of preventing them from providing evidence in the proceedings that would compromise their criminal liability.”