In 2005, during Hugo Chávez's presidency, expropriations became a significant issue in Venezuela. Chávez aimed to eliminate capitalism while maintaining a stance on private property, which in practice meant individuals could own personal belongings but not control the means of production.
When Chavez decided to expropiate Techint, the company went to court and made Venezuela owe them 184.9 million dollars.
It was introduced with the objective of nationalizing the Private Sector
Act of taking away private property by the Government with the objective of benefiting a country or, illegally, the authorities.
This measure strickly contradicts the articles 115 and 116 of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela's Constitution.
Article 116: Confiscation of property shall not be ordered and carried out, but in the
cases permitted by this Constitution. As an exceptional measure, the property of natural
or legal persons of Venezuelan or foreign nationality who are responsible for crimes
committed against public patrimony may be subject to confiscation, as may be the
property of those who illicitly enriched themselves under cover of Public Power, and
property deriving from business, financial or any other activities connected with unlawful
trafficking in psychotropic and narcotic substances.
Article 115: The right of property is guaranteed. Every person has the right to the use,
enjoyment, usufruct and disposal of his or her goods. Property shall be subject to such
contributions, restrictions and obligations as may be established by law in the service of
the public or general interest. Only for reasons of public benefit or social interest by final
judgment, with timely payment of fair compensation, the expropriation of any kind of
property may be declared.
Venezuelan Expropiations
Techint
Argentinian company focused on the building industry
Some companies see themselves forced to pay bribes in order to avoid being expropiated.
The empropriations make investors unwilling to invest or produce in the country.
Chávez insisted that while he was committed to “the elimination of capitalism”, he had no problem with the principle of private property.
In practice, this seems to mean that he believes individuals should be entitled to their personal belongings, but not control of the means of production
