International Fraud & Asset Tracing 2025 Comparisons

In order to comply with the requirements established under Mexico’s criminal justice system for fraud claims, certain specific elements must be present:

• the act must be committed intentionally;
• the act must involve deception or taking advantage of person’s mistake; and
• the act must result in economic harm.

It is important to demonstrate that the perpetrator acted with both knowledge and intent when committing the offence, meaning that the fraudster must have been aware of their illicit conduct and acted with the purpose of obtaining an unlawful gain.

In Mexico, the offence of making false statements before an authority arises only when the witness has been given a formal warning or taken an oath prior to providing their statement. If no such warning has been made, providing false information to an authority is not considered a criminal offence, as has been recognised by Mexico’s Supreme Court.

Crimes related to corruption are often punishable in Mexico’s legal system with an extensive catalogue of crimes related to corruption, including bribery. This offence applies to both public officials and private individuals who request, offer, or receive money or any other form of bribe with the intention of performing, or refraining from performing, an act related to their official duties.

In relation to offences involving corruption, illicit enrichment is also punishable under Mexican law. This offence occurs when a public official, by virtue of their position or office, significantly increases their wealth without being able to justify its lawful origin. It is an offence frequently committed by various members of the political class, who may take advantage of their public roles to engage in business dealings and unlawfully increase their assets.

In Mexico, public institutions must have an Internal Control Body, which is responsible for reviewing, investigating, and sanctioning conduct that constitutes administrative offences committed by public servants, whether acting alone or with private individuals. Once the Internal Control Body becomes aware of conduct that may violate the law, it has the authority to implement a range of measures and impose sanctions on the public servant or individual involved.

If the conduct contains elements that may be classified as a criminal offence, the Internal Control Body must refer the matter to the Prosecutor’s Office, which will then open a preliminary investigation.

If there is knowledge that a bribe has been offered, given or received, the Prosecutor’s Office is obligated to investigate the offence without the need for a specific individual to file a complaint.

The role of the Prosecutor’s Office is to analyse, assess, and categorise the conduct in order to determine whether it meets the legal criteria for a criminal offence. If the conduct satisfied the criteria, the Office will initiate formal criminal investigations and, where appropriate, criminal proceedings.

In order to determine a person’s liability and the applicable sentence, the Mexican legal system distinguishes between authorship and participation in the commission of a crime.

• Authorship: direct involvement in the commission of a crime.
• Participation: indirect involvement in a crime by performing acts that assist or facilitate its commission by another person.

Types of authorship and participation include the following.

• Material authorship: an individual who commits the offence.
• Co-authorship: two or more individuals who jointly commit the offence.
• Indirect authorship (mediated authorship): a person who commits an offence by using another individual as an instrument.
• Instigation: a person who intentionally induces or persuades another individual to commit a crime.
• Participation by assistance: a person who knowingly provides aid or support to the principal offender in the commission of the crime.
• Concealment based on prior agreement: a person who, after the offence has been committed, assists the offender in fulfilling a promise made before the crime was carried out.

In relation to a fraud claim, determining whether a person is involved in the commission of the offence requires an analysis of the specific circumstances of the case. However, it is essential that the individual either obtains a benefit, or assists another in obtaining such a benefit, through an act or omission.

In order to report a crime under Mexican law, there are three types of procedural requirements: prosecution ex officio, prosecution by complaint (querella), and an equivalent requirement. In cases such as fraud, it is important to understand the distinction between ex officio and complaint-based prosecution.

• Querella: a formal complaint submitted by the holder of the legally protected interest.
• Ex officio: any person who becomes aware of facts that may constitute a crime has the right and the obligation to report the offence to the authorities.

In the case of fraud, the victim must report the offence to the authorities within one year from the date on which they become aware of the crime. Mexican legislation provides that fraud is generally prosecuted by querella, unless otherwise specified. When the offence is subject to querella, the statute of limitations is one year.

However, when the fraud is committed against two or more victims, it is prosecuted ex officio, meaning that a formal complaint is not required. In such cases, the statute of limitations is calculated based on the average (arithmetic mean) of the minimum and maximum prison sentences established for the offence under the law. This average represents the applicable limitation period.

In criminal law, when fraud is committed, the victim has the right to the restitution of the assets that were obtained through illicit acts. One of the main goals of the criminal justice system is to restore the victim, and to achieve this, when fraud has occurred and the assets still exist, a conviction entitles the victim to claim restitution.

It is important to note that the Mexican legal system seeks to protect such assets by implementing precautionary measures, such as the freezing or securing of assets, bank accounts, or real estate, with the objective of ensuring that those assets may eventually be returned to the victim.

However, there may be confusion regarding whether the victim has a preferential right over other creditors. It should be noted that if an asset was obtained through a criminal act, a valid transfer of ownership never existed. Therefore, restitution takes precedence, even over third parties or creditors in cases of insolvency.

In other areas, such as civil or commercial law, an independent proceeding may be initiated, but in those cases the recovery will depend on proving the good or bad faith of the current possessor and, if applicable, the admissibility of a reivindicatory action or an action for annulment. However, when the assets are related to a crime, the criminal procedure provides a preferential and direct legal avenue to protect the victim’s rights.

There are no specific rules of pre-action conduct required for fraud cases under Mexican criminal law. For a criminal procedure to begin, it is sufficient that certain elements are present:

• the existence of a law that classifies the conduct as a crime; and
• a reasonable probability that the accused person committed that conduct.

In the case of fraud, the criminal process may be initiated once a complaint is filed, without the need for preliminary steps such as demand letters, prior notice to the defendant, or pre-litigation negotiations. The Public Prosecutor is then legally obligated to investigate the alleged facts in accordance with due process.

Under Mexican law, fraud is defined as the act of deceiving or taking advantage of another person’s error to obtain an illicit gain or benefit, either for oneself or for a third party, causing economic harm to the victim. Once these elements are established, the crime of fraud is considered to have occurred, and no prior formal actions are required before filing the complaint.

Precautionary Measures for the Restitution of Victims’ Rights

In order to secure the victim’s right to damage repair, either the victim or the Public Prosecutor may request the imposition of precautionary measures. These measures aim to guarantee compensation and include:

• seizure of assets; and
• freezing of bank accounts and other financial assets within the financial system.

These measures must be ordered by a judge, which must be presented with evidence showing both the existence of damage and the probable responsibility of the defendant in its commission.

Lifting of precautionary measures may occur when:

• the full amount of damages is guaranteed by the defendant;
• a non-prosecution resolution is issued;
• full compensation for damages has been paid;
• the legal time limit for such measures expires;
• if the measures were imposed prior to the initial hearing, and the Public Prosecutor fails to request their confirmation through formal precautionary measure; and
• if the defendant is acquitted from the obligation to repair damages, the precautionary measures must be lifted.

Precautionary Measures

Once a person is charged with the crime of fraud, the judge may impose precautionary measures, which will depend on the seriousness of the alleged offence.

Precautionary measures are set to guarantee the appearance of the defendant, the non-obstruction of the process, and the protection of victims and witnesses. Article 155 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure establishes the types of precautionary measures available. In cases involving fraud, where there is a risk that the defendant may dissipate or conceal assets to avoid the consequences of a judgment, the following measures may be ordered:

• the provision of a financial guarantee;
• the seizure of assets; and
• the immobilisation of accounts and other assets within the financial system.

If the defendant fails to comply with the imposed precautionary measures, the judge may impose stricter measures, including preventive detention or any other that restricts personal liberty, in accordance with Title VI, Chapter IV, Section I of the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

Based on Article 17 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States and the principles of criminal law, justice must be administered by courts that are readily available to deliver resolutions promptly, fully, impartially, and free of charge, in accordance with the deadlines and terms established by law. Therefore, in criminal matters, filing a complaint or being accused of a crime does not entail the payment of court fee.

During the hearing on precautionary measures or when seeking provisional remedies (providencias precautorias), the victim may submit evidence to support the imposition of such measures. Likewise, in order to access information regarding the defendant’s assets, the victim may request the Public Prosecutor to formally ask the defendant for such information, provided the request is duly grounded and justified. This is particularly relevant when aiming to identify assets that could be used to ensure damage repair or to prevent obstruction of the criminal process.

There is no legal obligation for the defendant to voluntarily disclose assets, regardless of whether they are held in their name or by third parties (nominees), unless the request is formally made by the Public Prosecutor or the control judge. In such cases, the defendant is legally required to provide the requested information.

If the defendant provides false information or obstructs the investigation, additional legal consequences may apply.

When a search warrant is requested, there are certain requirements that need to be assessed. If a search warrant is considered necessary, the Prosecutor’s Office must submit a request to a judge to authorise a search. Only the Public Prosecutor’s Office, with prior judicial authorisation from a control judge, may carry out a search at a person’s residence or place of business, meaning that the claimant cannot take part in the execution of the warrant.

If there is motive or probability that evidence may be destroyed or tampered with, the Prosecutor’s Office can order surveillance while awaiting the judge's authorisation of a search warrant.

In order for a judge to grant a search warrant, the judge has to verify that the Prosecutor’s Office included the following in their request:

• the exact location to be searched;
• the individuals to be arrested (if any);
• the objects being sought; and
• the specific facts and indicators justifying the need for the search.

In certain cases, information held by third parties is necessary to properly investigate a crime. To obtain such information in accordance with due process, the Prosecutor’s Office may formally request the third party to disclose it. These requests are typically accompanied by a warning that failure to comply may result in a fine or other legal sanctions, as determined by the competent authority.

This information may be requested once a complaint has been filed, in order to investigate a potential crime. The request must be related to the alleged criminal conduct or be necessary to clarify the facts of the case.

In the Mexican criminal justice system, procedural orders that amount to acts of interference or deprivation of rights, such as searches, seizures, arrests, or other precautionary measures, require prior notice and strict compliance with the essential formalities of due process. In most cases, this includes judicial authorisation and proper notification to the defendant.

When such an act is sought, Mexican law imposes a heightened obligation on the requesting party to present sufficient evidence demonstrating the necessity, proportionality, and legality of the measure. Once judicial authorisation is granted, the defendant must be promptly notified and afforded the opportunity to challenge the measure before a judge.

Importantly, from the moment any act of interference or deprivation of rights is carried out against the defendant, they acquire the right to access the case file in order to verify compliance with due process guarantees and to prepare an effective defence.

Non Bis In Idem and Dual Proceedings in Fraud Cases

The principle of non bis in idem, prohibits the double prosecution or punishment of a person for the same conduct. It applies when there is identity of subject, facts, and legal grounds. Accordingly, pursuing both criminal and civil proceedings for the same act, such as fraud, may, under certain circumstances, violate this principle.

In fraud cases, the primary legal interest at stake is the victim’s property. Consequently, reparation of damage is a fundamental component of criminal liability. However, if a person is convicted of fraud and ordered to pay damages within criminal proceedings, and is then subjected to a separate non-criminal proceeding, such as a civil or administrative action that imposes an additional obligation to compensate for the same harm, this could constitute a violation of non bis in idem.

In contrast, with the treatment of public officials’ liability, different forms of responsibility exist. These responsibilities are considered autonomous in purpose, procedure, and sanction. The Federal Collegiate Courts in Mexico hold that these concurrent responsibilities are handled by different authorities under distinct frameworks and do not violate the non bis in idem principle, as each process serves a different legal objective. In resarcitory proceedings, the state targets the patrimony of the responsible party, not their person, and this pursuit can occur independently of any criminal sanction.

Thus, while non bis in idem generally prohibits multiple sanctions for the same conduct, an exception is recognised in the Mexican legal system for the administrative and financial liability of public officials, due to their constitutionally distinct nature. However, in private fraud matters, caution must be exercised to avoid imposing duplicative reparations through parallel or consecutive proceedings, as this may infringe upon fundamental due process rights.

Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

The Mexican criminal justice system includes several alternative dispute resolution mechanisms aimed at expediting proceedings, promoting procedural economy, and effectively ensuring the reparation of harm.

Reparatory agreement

A reparatory agreement is an agreement between the victim and the accused, which extinguishes the criminal action through compensation for the harm caused.

In fraud cases, reparatory agreements may be entered into if the requirements set out in Article 187 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure are met. It is essential that the offence was committed without violence and did not affect two or more victims

Conditional suspension of the process

Conditional suspension of the process is a reparation plan proposed by the accused or the Prosecutor’s Office, whereby the accused agrees to repair the harm and comply with certain conditions for a specific period.

To access this mechanism in fraud cases, the arithmetic average of the minimum and maximum prison sentences must not exceed five years.

Abbreviated procedure

An abbreviated procedure is an early termination procedure, which must be requested by the Public Prosecutor and must not be opposed by the victim on valid grounds.

In fraud cases, if the accused wishes to submit to this procedure, they must admit responsibility for the offence, in exchange for a reduced sentence.

It is important to note that participation in any of these mechanisms requires the defendant’s consent and presence. Therefore, criminal proceedings carried out in the absence of the accused would constitute a violation of fundamental human rights.

A crime is defined as conduct, whether by action or omission, that is classified as a criminal offence under the law, is unlawful, and is committed by a person capable of criminal liability.

In Mexico, criminal law is governed by the ultima ratio principle, meaning it is intended to serve as a last resort within the legal system. It is applied only to sanction conduct that causes serious harm to legally protected interests.

Under Mexican criminal law, for the crime of fraud to be established, certain elements must be met, the perpetrator must engage in deception or take advantage of another person’s error, obtain an illicit gain or benefit for themselves or a third party, and cause economic harm to the victims.

To discourage and prevent the filing of false criminal complaints, the Mexican legal system punishes false statements made before authorities. It establishes as a crime any instance in which individuals, with the intention of wrongfully accusing or exonerating someone, make false declarations either as witnesses or complainants in a criminal proceeding. These legal safeguards help protect the system from frivolous or malicious allegations.

In cases where the perpetrator of a crime is unknown, but there is evidence of conduct that constitutes a criminal offence, such as fraud, the act can still be reported to the Public Prosecutor, even if the identity of the offender is unknown.

It is the duty of the Public Prosecutor to investigate the reported act and to carry out various investigative measures in order to clarify the facts and identify a potential suspect.

However, the Public Prosecutor may determine a temporary filing or issue a decision not to exercise criminal action if there is a lack of background information, leads, or sufficient elements to establish lines of investigation that would clarify the events.

Witness interviews do not require prior authorisation from the control judge and may therefore be freely conducted by the parties, provided that the principles of due process are respected. In the event that a witness refuses to give an interview that could be useful for clarifying the facts, it is sufficient to request the Public Prosecutor to formally summon them for that purpose.

Likewise, the Public Prosecutor is empowered to carry out investigative acts. If information, documents, or the appearance of individuals who are not parties to the proceedings, such as witnesses, is required, the Prosecutor may request them directly. In such cases, witnesses are legally obligated to provide the requested information or documentation. However, if the request entails any form of interference or deprivation affecting the individual’s rights, it must be duly grounded in fact and law by the Public Prosecutor, in accordance with Article 16 of the Mexican Constitution.

In Mexico, corporate criminal liability is still a developing area with certain legal gaps; however, both federal and local legislation provide frameworks for holding legal entities criminally liable.

Under Mexican criminal law, corporate liability arises when a company’s administrator, legal representative, or de facto manager commits a crime using the company’s structures or resources. In such cases, the individual is held personally liable, and the company may also be held responsible if the offence was committed in its name, for its benefit, or through its representatives. This is expressly regulated at the federal level under Article 11 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code.

There are two levels of liability, as set out below.

• Personal liability: individuals who act on behalf of the company.
• Corporate liability: the legal entity itself, particularly when it fails to implement effective internal controls to prevent criminal conduct.

To impose criminal liability on a corporate entity, it must be proven that the offence was connected to the company’s interests, structure, or business activities. It is not sufficient that an individual within the company committed the fraud, the offence must have been committed knowingly and in furtherance of the company’s goals.

Penalties for companies may include suspension of activities, dissolution, fines, disqualification from receiving public benefits, intervention, and liability for damages. Criminal sanctions do not exempt the company from separate civil or administrative liabilities.

Sometimes, those who are in charge of managing an entity, such as CEOs or shareholders, have access to confidential information or hold decision-making power that may be used for their own benefit. This power can be misused to carry out acts unrelated to the company’s legitimate interests, potentially constituting fraud or fraudulent administration.

If someone within the company becomes aware that the company is being wrongfully used or that someone is using the company as a vehicle to commit fraud, they may file a complaint or inform the victim of the conduct.

Should they choose to file a complaint, it must be verified that the entity is being harmed. In cases of fraudulent administration, it is necessary to show that the person is mismanaging assets or acting on behalf of the company in a wrongful manner, with the intention of obtaining an illicit advantage for themselves or another party.

Corporate Veil

In some cases, when a company has been used as a vehicle to commit fraud or to avoid legal obligations, it is possible to lift the corporate veil to hold those behind the entity personally liable. Under Mexican law, corporate entities enjoy a separate legal personality, which provides a layer of protection to shareholders.

However, courts may disregard this separation when there is sufficient evidence that the corporate structure is being abused for fraudulent purposes or to evade liabilities. For a judge to order the lifting of the corporate veil as a precautionary measure, it is necessary to present compelling proof that justifies this exceptional remedy.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held that such a measure requires reinforced legal reasoning, especially when adopted without granting the affected party an opportunity to be heard. This principle ensures that lifting the corporate veil remains a restrictive and subsidiary legal tool, applicable only when there is clear abuse of the corporate form.

A person commits the crime of fraudulent administration when, for any reason, being in charge of the management of an entity or company or having a duty of care over assets that do not belong to them, they carry out acts that cause harm to the entity under their responsibility. This is a criminal offence punishable by law. In such cases, the administrator often:

• falsifies operations or expenses;
• issues false reports;
• conceals the true situation; or
• knowingly misuses resources, fully aware that their actions are wrongful.

Important aspects include:

• the perpetrator does not need to obtain a personal benefit; and
• the illicit advantage can be for the perpetrator themselves or for a third party.

In these cases, the person causes harm to the entity they work for, so the entity itself may file a criminal complaint for fraudulent administration against the individual responsible. Those entitled to bring such a complaint must be legal representatives of the company; therefore, if the shareholders hold that authority, they may file the complaint against directors or administrative personnel who were in charge of the company and committed these acts.

Any person, regardless of their nationality, may file a criminal complaint in Mexico. However, to determine jurisdiction, identify the applicable legal framework, and establish who is entitled to participate in the criminal proceedings, two key aspects must be considered, as set out below.

Territorial Jurisdiction

The location where the offence was committed is fundamental. If the alleged crime took place within Mexican territory, Mexican authorities have jurisdiction. Jurisdiction may also apply when the offence is committed against Mexican individuals or companies, particularly if the legal domicile of the affected entity is located in Mexico.

Recognition of Victim Status

The complainant must demonstrate that they suffered harm as a result of the accused’s actions. In fraud-related cases, the harm is typically of a financial nature. Therefore, the complainant must provide evidence of actual economic loss to be recognised as a victim and to be granted standing in the proceedings.

International legal assistance applies when Mexico requires the co-operation or support of another country to carry out procedural acts that must take place outside the jurisdiction of the court handling the case. This type of assistance is available in civil, commercial, family, criminal, labour, and, in some cases, administrative proceedings.

Such co-operation allows foreign judges to assist with the following actions:

• service of process on defendants domiciled outside the jurisdiction;
• taking of evidence located abroad;
• proof of applicable foreign law; and
• precautionary or provisional measures, such as the seizure of assets located in another country.

This assistance is formalised through the following mechanisms.

• Exhortos: between judges of different states within Mexico.
• Letters rogatory: when the intervention of a foreign judge is required.

Under international treaties, exhortos and letters rogatory are the mechanisms through which a judge requests assistance from another court to carry out ancillary procedural acts.

In criminal matters, the execution of such requests is subject to stricter formalities. Letters rogatory must be channelled through the Central Authority, which, in Mexico’s case, is the Attorney General’s Office, and their validity depends on applicable international treaties. Additionally, any act that may affect fundamental rights must be duly grounded in fact and law.

It is essential to verify whether Mexico has entered into any international treaty with the requested country that provides for a specific mechanism or procedure. If such a treaty exists, it will govern the manner in which the request must be carried out. If not, the request must proceed through diplomatic channels under the principle of international reciprocity.

In criminal cases involving fraud, various enforcement mechanisms may be ordered by a judge at the request of the Prosecutor’s Office and/or the victim. These include the following.

Precautionary Measures

• Asset freezing: to preserve assets during litigation.
• Injunctions (precautionary measures): may be granted to prevent the defendant from disposing of assets or altering the financial status.

Criminal Enforcement in Fraud Cases

• Restitution and reparation orders: in fraud prosecutions, courts may issue orders for the return of property or compensation to the victim.
• Seizure of assets: prosecutors may request the freezing or forfeiture of assets linked to criminal activity under the National Code of Criminal Procedure.

In this context, Article 138 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure regulates precautionary measures aimed specifically at guaranteeing the right to reparation of harm. These may include asset seizures or the immobilisation of bank accounts and financial instruments. Judges must provide a reasoned justification for granting such measures and may modify or cancel them, provided that the victim has had the opportunity to be heard. However, the victim is not granted access to the frozen assets until a final conviction is issued.

In Mexico, in criminal law there is legal procedure for the direct enforcement of foreign criminal judgments or sentences. Mexican courts do not execute foreign convictions as if they were national rulings. However, international co-operation in criminal matters is recognised and regulated under Mexican law, and assistance may be granted through international treaties.

While foreign judgments cannot be enforced, Mexico may co-operate in executing specific procedural acts related to foreign criminal proceedings, particularly asset freezing, searches, and forfeiture of property, when the assets are located within Mexican territory and the request is properly supported. In such cases, the requesting state must provide detailed information regarding the purpose of the request and the measures sought.

Additionally, Mexico may assist in the confiscation of assets, provided the co-operation request is made in accordance with an applicable treaty and validated by the competent judicial authority.

Foreign criminal judgments cannot be directly enforced in Mexico, but specific acts related to such judgments may be executed through formal international co-operation channels, especially when they involve securing or recovering assets within national jurisdiction.

The right to remain silent is a human right enshrined in Article 20, Section B, Clause II of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Moreover, any communication with the authorities that takes place without the presence of the defendant’s legal counsel shall be null and void.

If a person is summoned to testify and is formally charged with the crime of fraud, they are not obliged to make a statement and have the right to remain silent.

Likewise, during the oral trial stage, the accused is fully entitled not to testify. However, if the accused decides to make a statement regarding the facts for which they are being prosecuted, and their defence counsel conducts the direct examination, they cannot refuse to answer during cross-examination as such conduct is contrary to the rules of criminal procedure. Therefore, if the defendant chooses to testify at trial, they must also submit to cross-examination.

Professional secrecy is a fundamental component of the right to an adequate legal defence. Every person accused of committing a crime has the right to be assisted by a lawyer from the outset of the criminal proceedings, in accordance with Article 20 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. This right includes the guarantee that any information provided by the accused to their legal counsel will be kept strictly confidential.

The duty of professional confidentiality protects the trust between client and lawyer, and its violation would seriously compromise the defendant’s procedural guarantees. For this reason, professional secrecy is legally protected as a mechanism to safeguard the full exercise of the right to defence.

However, in cases where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the lawyer is participating as a co-author of a criminal offence, the protection of professional secrecy may be limited or even excluded, in accordance with the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality.

The Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has held that professional secrecy cannot be invoked to conceal unlawful conduct. In its rulings, the Court has stated that when there is evidence linking the lawyer to the commission of a crime, the authorities may order the lifting of confidentiality, provided the measure is duly grounded in law and reasoned, and that due process is observed. This position seeks to balance the protection of the right to defence with the State’s interest in investigating and prosecuting criminal acts.

In fraud cases, the attorney-client privilege may be revoked when the lawyer has actively participated in the commission of the offence. This includes instances of procedural fraud, such as falsifying legal documents or submitting false documents to authorities with the intent to benefit their client. In such situations, the protection normally afforded to legal counsel may be lifted in order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.

In criminal law, once the defendant is found guilty of fraud, the judge will determine the applicable sanction, which may include a term of imprisonment, the imposition of a fine, and an order for damage reparation. The fine is typically calculated based on the amount defrauded, while the reparation of damages is determined through expert reports that assess the extent of the harm and suggest an appropriate amount for compensation. This amount must be proportionate to the damage caused.

In Mexico, financial institutions are legally obligated to maintain strict confidentiality regarding their clients’ transactions. This obligation, known as banking secrecy, is intended to protect personal data and uphold the right to privacy, prohibiting the disclosure of such information to unauthorised individuals.

Article 142 of the Law on Credit Institutions regulates both the protection of public interests and the rules governing banking secrecy. This provision allows for the disclosure of confidential banking information only through judicial control. In such cases, a judge may directly request specific account information from financial institutions, provided the account details are known. However, in practice, judges often issue official requests to the National Banking and Securities Commission to locate any accounts associated with a given individual within the financial system.

Once identified, this information is commonly used to request the freezing of funds, thereby facilitating the enforcement of seizure or collection orders in a more efficient and expedited manner. Article 142 also specifies the authorities empowered to request financial information from credit institutions.

In cases involving fraud or similar financial crimes, the Public Prosecutor’s Office is authorised to request such data to substantiate the criminal act and the defendant’s liability. These requests must be duly grounded in law and justified, and must be submitted either through the National Banking and Securities Commission or by means of a judicial request before the appropriate control judge.

Virtual Assets

A virtual asset is a digital representation of value that can be used as a means of payment and/or investment, and whose transfer is carried out electronically.

Fintech Law

In Mexico, virtual assets are regulated by the Law to Regulate Financial Technology Institutions (the “Fintech Law”), which was enacted to address the need to regulate technological advancements in the financial sector, particularly those related to digital technologies and crypto-assets.

According to Article 34 of the Fintech Law, Financial technology institutions may only operate with virtual assets that have been previously authorised by the Bank of Mexico.

Under the current legal framework, virtual assets may be used as a means of payment; however, they do not have the status of currency, are not recognised as legal tender, and do not have debt-discharging power. They are instead regarded as digital commodities.

It is important to note that the use and circulation of virtual assets is not prohibited in Mexico, but such assets are not considered legal tender and are not backed by the federal government.

Due to the lack of comprehensive regulation in this area, the commission of financial and tax-related crimes, particularly those involving fraud, can be carried out with relative ease. Moreover, the Fintech Law in Mexico tends to conflate cryptocurrencies with other types of virtual assets, such as stablecoins, blockchain technologies, and digital asset exchanges. This regulatory ambiguity may hinder the effective prosecution and punishment of cybercrimes committed through the use of virtual assets.