They used Afiancol’s logo as a bait for trust. They collected cash with no receipt provided. Today, they demand compliance with a contract they breached from the very first second. An alert for Medellín and Antioquia.
A family in Bogotá fell victim to a blatant, filthy, and premeditated scam. They handed over 2,015,000 Colombian pesos in cash—without receiving a single receipt—to Juan David Monsalve, the individual who poses as the owner of David Tiene Las Llaves, a phantom real estate operation running through Facebook with no physical storefront other than a social media account and two phone numbers. The listing promised an apartment “in good condition.” The lease carried Afiancol’s official seal. Yet, upon opening the door, they were met with a rotten, damp, and rusted property featuring crumbling woodwork, wall cracks, peeling paint, and exposed electrical cables.
The amount might seem small to some, but what truly matters is the modus operandi. Operating this way in smaller transactions—collecting cash without receipts, leveraging a recognized brand name to build false confidence, securing contract signatures before tenant viewings, and turning over decaying property—poses a massive risk for any citizen falling into the hands of such operators.
The Bait and the Cash Deal
It all began with a misleading Facebook advertisement featuring a bright, sunlit apartment in western Bogotá. The contract arrived via email carrying Afiancol’s letterhead. For a family seeking decent housing, that name served as trust bait. Operating behind the ad was David Tiene Las Llaves, a shady entity with no physical presence beyond a Facebook page and two phone numbers (313 490 0195 and 300 372 2093). The visible face of this operation is Juan David Monsalve.
On October 15, they signed electronically. That same day, they paid Monsalve 1,550,000 pesos for the first month’s rent plus 465,000 pesos for unexplained “contract rights.” Total paid: 2,015,000 pesos in cash, handed directly without a receipt, even though the contract itself stipulates that payments must be made via bank transfer.
Dampness, Rust, and Exposed Wires
Hours later, they unlocked the door and were greeted by a foul stench: dampness and mold radiating from walls, closets, and kitchen cabinets. Door frames were swollen, rotten, and reduced to a mush that disintegrated at the touch. Built-in furniture showed signs of rust, alongside wall cracks, peeling paint, and sloppy repair attempts. In one bedroom, a hole in the wall left live electrical wiring exposed next to an outlet. The actual layout was significantly smaller than advertised.
“They promised us an apartment in good condition, we signed for an apartment in good condition, and they handed us a rotten, damp, rusted, and unlivable property,” the family stated. “Now they demand we honor a contract they violated from day one. This is a scam.”
The person showing the apartment recorded a nearly five-minute video walk-through. Those images clearly show the damaged frames, cracks, and wall opening exposing electrical wires. Despite these conditions, it was listed as move-in ready and paid for upfront. The video fails to capture the rust or the overwhelming, persistent odor. “As soon as you walk in, you feel it immediately. Nobody can live there,” the family emphasized.
No Inspection Record and Unanswered Demands
No formal property condition report or inventory log was ever conducted. The family did not move in a single piece of furniture. That very afternoon, they sent formal notice to both the property owner and David Tiene Las Llaves, copying Afiancol, terminating the lease with cause and demanding a full refund. The only response received was empty promises of future repairs if they stayed. “An apartment must be delivered ready from the start,” the family insisted. “You don’t sign a contract under false pretenses and then claim you’ll paint it later.”
Legal Framework and Unanswered Questions
The law supports their claim. Article 8 of Law 820 of 2003 mandates that leased residential properties must be delivered in proper working order, safe, and sanitary from day one. Additionally, the Civil Code permits contract termination when property defects prevent it from being used for its intended purpose. While Afiancol protects property owners against non-paying tenants, it does not inspect property conditions. Nonetheless, their official logo provided a veneer of legitimacy that the family considers deceptive. Furthermore, under the surety contract, Afiancol’s fee is to be covered by the landlord—yet 465,000 pesos were demanded in cash from the tenants for “contract rights.”
Inquiries were sent to Juan David Monsalve regarding the legal registration of David Tiene Las Llaves, its association with Afiancol, the ad details, the true condition of the property, and the whereabouts of the money. As of publication time, no response has been received from Monsalve, the landlord, or Afiancol.
The family is still waiting to recover their 2,015,000 pesos. If the funds are not returned, they plan to proceed to mediation and, if necessary, seek judicial recourse.
Key Takeaway: An Afiancol seal on a contract is no substitute for inspecting an apartment in person. No cash payment should ever be made without an official receipt. Exercise extreme caution with operations like David Tiene Las Llaves that exist solely on Facebook. This family paid for habitable shelter and received a rotten apartment. This was not a minor delivery flaw: it was a despicable scam. The amount involved may be small, but the tactics used represent the real danger.
