White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

In Mexico, there are two criminal jurisdictions: federal and state. Federal criminal offences are provided for in the Federal Criminal Code (FCC) and certain federal laws, and all 32 states in Mexico have a Criminal Code in which the local criminal offences are set out. There is no distinction between misdemeanours and felonies.

A perpetrator can be held accountable for an act or an omission (actus reus) that meets the elements of the crime provided in criminal law, whether such act or omission was purposely or recklessly (mens rea) committed. For crimes in which a result is required as a constituent element, it is possible that a person is accountable by omission, if they omitted to prevent such result and had a legal duty to do so. An act or omission is considered purposeful when the perpetrator is aware that their conduct constitutes a crime, and as reckless when the perpetrator failed to exercise reasonable or proper measures to prevent the result of the crime because they (i) were not aware of the risk that led to said result, but should have been aware; or (ii) consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustified risk.

An attempted crime is also punishable when its execution started, whether through an act or omission, but did not conclude due to external circumstances beyond the control of the perpetrator that did not allow its conclusion.

Pursuant to Article 130 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure (NCCP), the burden of proof lies with the public prosecutor, since it is the authority responsible for leading the investigation and proving the defendant’s guilt. In criminal proceedings in Mexico, there are two instances when the burden of proof applies.

• Initial hearing: the public prosecutor shall prove to the criminal judge that there are reasonable grounds for believing that a crime was committed, and the defendant is responsible for it.
• Trial hearing: the public prosecutor shall prove beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed, and the defendant is responsible for it.

Throughout the criminal proceedings, the defendants shall be presumed innocent until there is a judgment convicting them, since this is a human right recognised by Mexico.

For certain crimes, the criminal law provides presumptions – ie, Article 400 bis of the FCC (money laundering) provides the presumption that the products, resources or goods are proceeds of a crime when the legitimate origin cannot be proven, and there are legal grounds to prove that they came from – directly or indirectly – or represent the profits of a crime; however, such presumption does not substitute for the public prosecutor’s burden of proof.

The statute of limitations applies to the investigation of a crime and enforcement of the conviction. For the investigation and further prosecution of a crime, the statute of limitation starts:

• once the crime has been committed, if it is an “instantaneous crime”;
• from the last act executed, or omission made, with regard to attempted and continuous crimes; or
• once its perpetration has ceased, if it is a “permanent crime”.

The statute of limitations only stops when the defendant is brought before a criminal judge, remaining on hold during the criminal procedure.

The statute of limitations varies depending on the penalty. Pursuant to Articles 104–106 of the FCC, the following applies.

• the limitation period is one year for crimes sanctioned only with a fine;
• for crimes sanctioned with imprisonment, or with imprisonment and a fine, the statute of limitations is the arithmetic average of the prescribed imprisonment penalty; and
• unless otherwise specified, the limitation period is two years if the crime only stipulates sanctions such as discharge, suspension, deprivation of rights or disqualification.

Moreover, when the crime is being investigated in the context of the first half of the arithmetic average, the investigation suspends the statute of limitation, and such term can only be extended by half. Also, when a crime is prosecuted as per the request of the victim (querella), Article 107 of the FCC sets forth a three-year term for filing the criminal complaint starting from when the crime was committed, and a one-year term starting from the moment the victim became aware of the crime and the identity of the perpetrator. Failure to comply with such terms for denouncing the crime will bar its prosecution, regardless of the statute of limitations for the investigation.

In general terms, if a crime is committed abroad under the circumstances provided in the FCC, Mexico will have jurisdiction for its prosecution, considering it as a federal crime. In that regard, Articles 2–5 of the FCC provide several grounds for extraterritorial jurisdiction, such as the following.

• When the crime is initiated, prepared or committed abroad but its effects occurred or are intended to occur within Mexico, or – regardless of the effects – when there is a binding treaty to which Mexico is a party that requires either extradition or prosecution, and:
1. the perpetrator is in Mexico;
2. there is no conviction against the perpetrator in the country where the crime was committed; and
3. the double criminality principle is met.
• For continuous crimes committed abroad, when their perpetration continues in Mexico regardless of the citizenship of the perpetrator/s.
• For crimes committed abroad by Mexicans against Mexicans or foreigners, or by foreigners against Mexicans, under the following conditions:
1. the accused is in Mexico;
2. the accused has not been definitively judged in the country where the crime occurred;
3. the offence is classified as a crime in the country where it was committed and under Mexican law, in accordance with the principle of double criminality; and
4. when the offence is committed in Mexican vessels, airships, consulates or embassies.

For white-collar crimes, if the relevant international treaty does not explicitly specify the crimes for which extradition is applicable, extradition will be granted provided that the requirements for doing so are satisfied. Mexico has 48 bilateral and two multilateral agreements specifically on criminal co-operation.

Multilateral Agreements

The two multilateral agreements among the member states of the Organization of American States (OAS) are the Inter-American Convention on Serving Criminal Sentences Abroad and the Inter-American Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.

Bilateral Agreements

Mexico has criminal legal assistance and extradition agreements with 27 countries, and it has execution and enforcement of criminal judgment agreements with 16 countries. If no international treaty governs the circumstances or conditions for extradition, international extradition law will apply.

During 2025, Mexico has seen several cases in which the Mexican law enforcement authorities have co-operated with international task forces, such as Interpol and (mainly) US law enforcement authorities, for extraditing perpetrators to the USA or from other states to Mexico.

The criminal liability of legal entities is regulated for federal and local crimes (in each of the 32 local Criminal Codes); however, such regulation is not uniform, so the circumstances under which a legal entity can be indicted depends on the regulation. The crimes that can be indictable for a legal entity also vary; there is a catalogue of federal crimes in Article 11 bis of the FCC, and legal entities can only be accountable for the crimes provided therein.

In general terms, legal entities shall be criminally liable for crimes committed on their behalf, on their account, for their benefit or through means provided by them when it is determined that there was a failure to exercise proper control within their organisation. Therefore, if a crime is committed by an individual, such as a representative, executive, officer or employee of a legal entity, and such crime can be charged against the latter, both the individual and the legal entity can be investigated. However, the individual being exonerated does not automatically imply that the legal entity will be as well, since they are autonomous with respect to criminal liability.

Criminal liability cannot be automatically attributed to an individual solely by virtue of being a partner, director, manager, shareholder or representative of a company; the actus reus and mens rea elements must be proven. On the other hand, regarding attributing criminal liability to a legal entity, it must be proven that a lack of proper control within the organisation existed, and that such lack of control allowed or facilitated the crime committed by the individual(s) – whether for the benefit of, on behalf of or with means provided by the legal entity.

The criminal liability of a legal entity cannot be automatically extended to parent-subsidiary or group companies, whether located abroad or in Mexico. In any case, the intervention of any individual related to such other companies must be proven, along with a lack of proper control within those companies.

In the context of a company merger, absorption or acquisition, the successor or resulting entity may be held responsible for crimes committed by the entity originally liable. In such cases, the penalty may be adjusted according to the relationship between the successor and the legal entity responsible for the crime.

Penalties for individuals, such as imprisonment and fines, shall be established under the statutory definition of each crime or explicitly remit to the article in which penalties are provided. When determining the quantum of the penalty within the minimum and maximum limits provided for the specific crime, the criminal judge shall consider the following, pursuant to Article 52 of the FCC and Article 410 of the NCCP:

• the interest protected by the crime, and the magnitude of the damage caused;
• the nature of the act or omission;
• the intentionality of the conduct, the means used and the circumstances of its commission; and
• the contribution and intervention of the perpetrators, and their behaviour after the crime was committed.

For legal entities, the FCC provides the following penalties for federal crimes:

• suspension of activities for between six months and six years;
• closing down of an establishment or premises for between six months and six years;
• prohibition of carrying out activities where the crime was committed for between six months and ten years;
• prohibition of participating in governmental tenders for between six months and ten years;
• judicial intervention for safekeeping the employees’ or creditors’ interests, for between six months and six years;
• a fine; and
• dissolution of the legal entity.

Concerning the penalties for legal entities, the criminal judge can select the most suitable penalty from those listed in the foregoing, but the penalty must be proportional to the damage caused. Some aspects considered include:

• the extent of the lack of control;
• the amount of money involved in the crime;
• the position of the perpetrators within the legal entity;
• the extent to which the company compromises with respect to compliance;
• the damages caused; and
• the social interests of the consequences.

For federal crimes, Article 11 bis of the FCC provides that the sanction for legal entities can be reduced by up to one-quarter if, prior to the commission of the crime, the legal entity had in place a permanent supervisory and internal control body, or person, in charge of overseeing compliance with law and internal policies to prevent the commission of crimes and that, after the crime was committed, the damage caused was mitigated.

Regardless of the crime, all victims shall be indemnified since it is a human right, as stipulated by international treaties such as the American Convention on Human Rights and the Mexican Constitution.

The General Law for Victims (GLV) considers as a direct victim anyone who suffered harm, damage, loss (whether economic, physical, mental, emotional or in general), danger or injury to their legal rights or interests as a result of the commission of a crime or violations of their human rights. Therefore, if a white-collar crime causes harm, damage or loss to several persons, each one is entitled to be indemnified. Such indemnification shall provide full restitution by considering all the damages, loss of profits, adverse effects, etc, caused by the crime.

The trial court shall decide on and quantify the indemnification; however, the quantification can also be done during the enforcement proceedings carried out by the criminal enforcement judge. In addition to the indemnification established in the FCC and local Criminal Codes, the GLV provides additional reparation measures aimed at recognising and ensuring the rights of victims of crime.

Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office is in charge of the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes, and has specialised prosecution offices for investigating several white-collar crimes including, among others, tax and financial crimes; money laundering; and copyright and industrial property crimes. Also, it has a specialised prosecution office for international matters, which can investigate white-collar crimes committed abroad as specified in 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation.

For local crimes, the Attorney General’s Offices of the 32 states can all investigate and prosecute white-collar crimes that fall under their jurisdiction; they also have specialised units for investigating white-collar crimes.

Regarding crimes of corruption, at both the federal and local levels there is a special prosecutor’s office to combat corruption, which operates as an autonomous agency. Also, acts of corruption can be prosecuted as administrative offences, for which governmental bodies have internal audit offices.

The Attorney General’s Offices have a police unit and, for certain crimes, specialised police units. Police officers conduct investigations under the terms or instructions provided by the public prosecutor, since it is the body with the power to investigate crimes. There are no specialised criminal judges for federal or local white-collar crimes, so federal and local criminal judges process any such cases that fall under their jurisdiction.

On 1 June 2025, Mexico held its first direct judicial electoral process, in which nine justices of the Mexican Supreme Court of Justice were elected, along with various federal and state judges and magistrates across the country, for several branches of the law – including criminal law. Some of the elected judges, magistrates and justices were already situated in local and federal judicial branches, while others are new to the judicial system, which could bring changes to the administration of justice.

There are no specific rules or guidelines that govern the initiation of a white-collar crime investigation. An investigation, whether federal or local, is initiated once a white-collar crime is reported – whether by any individual when the offence is prosecuted ex officio, or by the victim or offended party when it is prosecuted by querella.

The Attorney General’s Offices in all 32 states, whether federal or local offices, have the power to request any information necessary for an investigation and can carry out any investigative act to obtain information, provided that it is connected with the crime under investigation. However, when such investigative acts can affect human rights, authorisation for carrying them out must be granted by a criminal judge – eg, to obtain banking information, which is protected by the bank secrecy regulation.

Search warrants must also be authorised by a criminal judge and, in the case of seizures, when human rights may be affected, prior judicial authorisation is also needed. Additionally, under Article 215 of the NCCP, any private party or public official is obliged to provide to the public prosecutor any information or documentation that is required, and Article 360 of the NCCP sets out the obligation to testify. However, in both cases, a restriction on self-incrimination applies.

Mexican law enforcement authorities have powers to trace, freeze and seize digital assets if they are instruments, objects or proceedings of crime, in accordance with Article 229 NCCP; however, judicial authorisation is needed.

The use of AI and advanced digital tools is not restricted for law enforcement authorities in white-collar investigations; they can deploy any technological tools that support their investigations, since the NCCP does not restrict such use. Thus, the authorities can use digital tools for data extraction or processing, although their use must not violate human rights or any legal provision, and the output of such tools must constitute trustworthy information.

Similarly, for private parties, there is no restriction on the use of AI or other advanced digital tools for internal investigations, but the output of such tools must again be trustworthy, and the data used or obtained must comply with Mexican regulations and not violate human rights.

As further explained in 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation, legal entities shall establish adequate protocols and procedures for crime prevention, as well as monitoring and reporting systems, so that when non-compliance occurs or a risk materialises, the company can take proper measures, such as carrying out an internal investigation, and mitigate the consequences.

Even though there are no guidelines for carrying out internal investigations, the human rights of the involved parties, the data protection regulations and the rules for producing evidence provided in the NCCP shall be respected and observed to avoid the evidence obtained, produced or collected being nullified in a criminal procedure. Likewise, it is important to consider attorney-client privilege, which is protected under Article 362 of the NCCP, when carrying out internal investigations. Moreover, Article 244 of the NCCP states that any communication, or information generated or exchanged, between the defendant(s) and persons protected by professional secrecy cannot be seized.

The findings of an investigation can lead a company to decide to self-report (or not), since the privilege against self-incrimination also applies to legal entities. For instance, if a company takes proper measures to mitigate the consequences of a crime after its commission in connection with other preventive measures previously in force within the organisation, it can reduce the penalty for a federal crime pursuant to the last paragraph of Article 11 bis of the FCC.

As explained in 2.2 Initiating an Investigation, there is no specific process for initiating a white-collar investigation and prosecution. The public prosecutor is the authority in charge of the investigation, so the decision as to who is to be charged relies thereon – and will depend on the information obtained during the investigation. If the crime is attributable to a legal entity, the public prosecutor has sole discretion for determining if the entity will be indicted. 

As alternative resolution mechanisms, the NCCP provides the possibility for entering into a compensation agreement or a conditional suspension of the process. For negotiating the termination of a conflict with the support of the authority, the National Law on Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanisms on Criminal Matters (LNMASCMP) provides the mediation and conciliation to resolve the conflict on a voluntary basis.

A compensation agreement is made between the victim and the perpetrator in cases where the crime is prosecuted as per the request of the victim (querella); this relates to non-intentional (reckless) or patrimonial crimes committed without violence. Such agreements set the terms under which the perpetrator will indemnify the victim, and once it is fulfilled, the criminal case is closed. On the other hand, conditional suspension of the process applies to crimes for which the arithmetic average of the prescribed imprisonment penalty does not exceed five years, and provides a term of six months to three years. The perpetrator shall comply with certain conditions established by the criminal judge to compensate the victim for the damage caused.

As explained in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability, legal entities can be indicted for the federal crimes provided in Article 11 bis of the FCC, and in some states there is also a catalogue of indictable crimes perpetrated by legal entities. Mexico City’s Criminal Code states that legal entities can be indicted for all the crimes therein and according to any other special local laws. The indictable crimes include some of those detailed in 3. White-Collar Offences; in addition, in some states, legal entities can be indicted for fraud, breach of trust, embezzlement, fraudulent administration and theft, among other offences.

Bribery and influence peddling are considered criminal offences under Articles 221 and 222, subsections I and II, of the FCC and in all 32 local Criminal Codes. Bribery of foreign public officials is considered a federal crime, sanctioned under Article 222 bis of the FCC. However, bribery between private parties is not considered a crime even though Mexico is part of the United Nations Convention against Corruption.

A bribe is any promise made, or benefit or money illicitly given, to a public official in order that they execute, or refrain from executing, any act related to the duty inherent to their job, charge or commission. Bribery can be committed by public officials who, directly or indirectly, request or receive a benefit, or accept a promise, and by private individuals who promise or provide a benefit to a public official even though the benefit is received by third parties linked to the official, such as relatives, partners or third parties with whom they have business, professional or labour relationships, etc.

Concerning bribery of foreign public officials, the bribe must be given with the purpose of obtaining or retaining an improper advantage during international business transactions. Furthermore, when a foreign public official manages or processes a matter unrelated to the duties inherent to their job, charge or commission, it is considered as bribery, which is not the case with domestic bribery.

Crimes Involving Influence Peddling

Influence peddling by public officials

Examples of influence peddling by public officials include:

• a public official encouraging or managing, directly or through third parties, the illicit processing or resolution of public business unrelated to the duties inherent to their job, charge or commission; and

• a public official requesting or encouraging, directly or through third parties, the resolution or execution of any act that corresponds to a public official’s job, charge or commission, for their own economic benefit or for that of a relative or third party with whom they are linked by friendship or business.

Influence peddling by private individuals

Examples of influence peddling by public officials include:

• a person encouraging illicit conduct on the part of a public official in relation to managing or processing the resolution of public business unconnected to the duties inherent to the public official’s job, charge or commission; and
• a person, without authorisation, intervening in public business before public officials in charge of decisions relating thereto, in order to promote an illicit resolution for their own benefit or that of a third party.

The influence peddling established as a criminal offence in the FCC does not include foreign public officials; it is focused only on domestic public officials.

Other Crimes Under the FCC

Under the FCC, other crimes include;

• investing in, selling or acquiring something – or carrying out an act – to confer an economic benefit, directly or indirectly;
• using privileged (not in the public domain) information acquired through one’s job, charge or commission, regardless of the connection that such information has to the duties of a public official (Article 220, subsection II);
• illicitly granting concessions for the provision of public services or for the exploitation, enjoyment or use of public property (Article 217, subsection I, paragraph A); and
• illicitly granting permits, licences, awards or authorisations of an economic nature (Article 217, subsection I, paragraph B).

In the federal jurisdiction in Mexico, and in most of the local jurisdictions, companies can be held liable for bribery and influence-peddling crimes, as explained in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability, and the obligation to implement a compliance programme derives from the proper control mandated within the organisation. Even though there are no provisions in certain local Criminal Codes that specify the content of a compliance programme for federal and local crimes, the following measures should be considered.

• A risk assessment should be carried out and documented, in which criminal offences (risks), whether federal or local, for which the company can be held liable in accordance with its business activities are identified. The controls put in place for preventing such offences and mitigating residual risk should also be detailed.

• Assignment of a person (commonly a chief compliance officer) in charge of supervising compliance within the company.
• Policies, protocols or procedures to prevent criminal activities should be in place.
• A clear and complete organisational/procedural manual clearly defining the functions and responsibilities of each department of the company, and the chains of command and leadership for each corporate structure.
• Guidelines for managing financial resources.

• A published code of conduct that every person in the organisation is aware of, and systems and mechanisms for its effective implementation.

• Making the reporting of possible risks and non-compliance to the body in charge of monitoring the operation obligatory, as well as adhering to the “prevention model”. An adequate whistle-blowing system should exist for both internal reports and reports made to the authorities.
• A disciplinary system that adequately sanctions non-compliance according to the prevention measures set out in the model.
• Periodic verification and modification of the model when violations of its provisions are revealed, or when relevant changes occur in the organisation, the control structure or activities.

If a company suspects that bribery has occurred, an internal investigation is recommended for confirmation, and to decide on the consequences, such that appropriate action is taken by the company.

The Securities Market Law (SML), the Credit Institutions Law (CIL) and the Law to Regulate Financial Technology Institutions (LRFTI) provide, in Articles 192, 142 and 73, respectively, securities and bank secrecy regulations. The operations carried out and information of clients should be kept confidential by financial institutions. Failure to comply with such confidentiality requirements can lead to criminal liability and penalties such as imprisonment for three to nine years (up to six years for information held by fintech companies).

Crimes related to the securities market are provided in the SML (Articles 373–388) and include the following.

• Using privileged information for carrying out operations with securities whose price could be affected by said information, such that a benefit is obtained or a loss prevented. The imprisonment penalty of two to 12 years depends on the benefit obtained or the loss prevented.
• Manipulating the securities market, such as by artificially affecting the price or volume of securities, or their supply and demand. The imprisonment penalty of two to 12 years depends on the benefit obtained or the loss prevented.
• Disseminating false information regarding securities or the financial, administrative, economic or legal situation of an issuer of securities, or hiding or omitting to reveal relevant information or events that should be disclosed pursuant to the SML. The imprisonment penalty is five to ten years.

Crimes connected with financial institutions and operations are provided in Articles 111–116 bis 1 of the CIL and include the following.

• Carrying out fundraising activities without having the authorisation to do so, whether through deposits, loans or credit operations. The imprisonment penalty is seven to 15 years, with fines of 500–50,000 Units of Measurement and Update (Unidades de Medida y Actualización; UMAs).
• Granting or authorising credits while being aware that a patrimonial loss will be caused. The imprisonment penalty is three months to 15 years, with fines of 30–350,000 UMAs depending on the amount of the patrimonial loss.
• Illicitly using, obtaining, transferring or engaging in any other means of disposing of the economic resources of a financial institution and its clients. The imprisonment penalty is five to 15 years, with fines of 500–30,000 UMAs.

Crimes connected with fintech companies are provided in Articles 118–133 of the LRFTI, and include the following.

• Illicitly using, obtaining, transferring or engaging in any other means of disposing of the resources and virtual assets of a fintech company and its clients. The imprisonment penalty is three to nine years, with fines of 5,000–150,000 UMAs.
• Carrying out transactions or activities involving the virtual assets of fintech companies without having authorisation to do so. The imprisonment penalty is seven to 15 years, with fines of 5,000–150,000 UMAs.

Tax fraud can be a federal or local crime, depending on whether the affected party is the Federal or State Treasury. Regarding the federal jurisdiction, tax fraud crime is provided in Article 108 of the Federal Tax Code (FTC), and consists of omitting, in full or in part, the payment of outstanding contributions or obtaining a benefit to the detriment of the Federal Treasury, whether by deceiving the Tax Authority or taking advantage of an error. Additionally, Article 109 of the FTC considers the following crimes equivalent to tax fraud.

• Reporting, in tax returns:
1. false deductions;
2. accruable income lower than the actual income received; or
3. lower values of transactions or activities than those actually obtained, carried out or determined in accordance with the law.

• Failure to pay amounts withheld or collected as contributions to the tax authorities within the timeframe established by law.

• Unlawfully benefitting from a subsidy or tax incentive.
• Failure to file definitive tax returns for more than 12 months, including annual returns required by tax laws, thereby neglecting payment of the corresponding taxes.
• Assigning tax effects to invoices that do not meet legal requirements.

Also, Article 113 bis of the FTC establishes that issuing, selling or acquiring invoices that cover non-existent transactions, or false or simulated legal acts, is a crime.

The penalties for tax fraud are determined in line with the amount defrauded, so the imprisonment penalty may range from three months to nine years. Tax fraud can also be attributed to companies; therefore, their compliance programmes should prevent the crimes provided in Articles 108, 109 and 113 bis of the FTC. Thus, it is advisable for taxpayers to implement a tax risk prevention programme. Furthermore, tax disputes can lead to administrative proceedings that may result in seizure of the taxpayer’s assets, and if fraudulent conduct involving deception is identified by the tax authority, criminal proceedings may also be initiated.

The Commercial Code (CC) establishes that companies and traders should keep evidence of their operations and accounting records for a term of ten years. Also, the FTC establishes that legal entities’ accounting records shall be kept for tax purposes for a term of five years.

According to the FTC, registering false or inaccurate information in accounting records is a crime, as is keeping records with false information and having two or more accounting systems with different content. The penalty for these transgressions is three months to three years of imprisonment (Article 111).

Organised crime, such as cartel crime, is prosecuted and sanctioned under the Federal Law against Organised Crime, which considers organised criminal activity to have occurred when three or more people associate permanently or repeatedly with the intention of committing certain offences, including:

• financing of terrorism and international terrorism;
• illegal possession of narcotics and small-scale drug trafficking;
• operations with illicitly obtained resources (money laundering);
• copyright crimes;
• stockpiling and trafficking of weapons;
• human and organs trafficking; and
• certain crimes related to hydrocarbons.

The mere formation of or participation in such criminal organisations is punishable, regardless of whether the intended crimes are committed or not, and any crime committed through organised crime is independently punished. The imprisonment penalty ranges from four to 60 years, with fines of 250–37,500 fine-days.

Although Mexico has the Federal Economic Competition Law (FECL), crimes connected to economic competition are set forth in Article 254 bis of the FCC, which considers it a crime when contracts, agreements or arrangements are entered into or made between competitive economic agents with the purpose of the following conduct, among other things:

• fixing, increasing, agreeing or manipulating the sale or purchase price of goods and/or services;
• restricting the production, processing, distribution, marketing, acquisition or purchase of goods, or the provision of services; and
• splitting the market among competitors, whether by type of client or provider, geographical area or specific times.

For such crimes, the imprisonment penalty is five to ten years, with fines of 1,000–10,000 fine-days. Organised crime and economic competition are not attributable to legal entities.

Crimes related to consumers are provided in Articles 253 and 254 of the FCC, which establishes an imprisonment penalty of three to ten years and 200–1,000 fine-days. Conduct considered a crime includes:

• hoarding, hiding or unjustifiably refusing to provide commodities to raise prices or disrupt consumer supply;
• preventing or hindering free competition in the production or commerce of commodities;
• limiting production to keep commodities at an unfair price;
• exporting commodities without the required permission from the relevant authority;
• preventing the production, distribution or sale of electricity as a public service;
• packing goods for sale in quantities lower than indicated or outside permissible limits, or without indicating the official maximum retail price when required;
• delivering goods in quantities lower than agreed when measurement is carried out during the transaction;
• altering or reducing the properties that goods or products should have; and
• publishing “fake news” that disrupts domestic markets – whether concerning goods, currency or bills of trade.       

Cybercrimes and computer fraud are not regulated by a specific criminal law and may be considered as local or federal crimes depending on the jurisdiction rules. For instance, if cybercrime or computer fraud is committed abroad, as explained in 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation, the FCC will be applicable. Otherwise, local Criminal Codes will apply.

Computer Fraud

The FCC does not specifically refer to computer fraud, so the definition of generic fraud in Article 386 of the FCC is applicable when a benefit is obtained, or a loss caused, as a result of deception or taking advantage of a misbelief of the victim.

Cybercrimes

The unauthorised modification or destruction of information in computer systems is sanctioned with imprisonment of six months to two years and fines of 100–300 fine-days. Penalties are more severe when the information affects national or public security systems, reaching up to ten years of imprisonment and fines of 500–1,000 fine-days (Article 211 bis 1 and bis 2 of the FCC).

Under the CIL, accessing or altering banking records without legitimate cause or consent, with the intent to obtain economic resources or confidential information, is sanctioned with imprisonment of three to nine years and fines ranging from 30,000 to 300,000 UMAs (Article 112 quater). Increased penalties apply if the offender is a bank official or committed the crime within two years of leaving such a position (Article 112 quintus). Similarly, under the LRFTI, unauthorised access to the electronic systems of fintech companies or entities operating with innovative models is penalised with imprisonment of three to nine years and fines ranging from 5,000 to 150,000 UMAs (Article 132).

Regarding personal data, the Federal Law on the Protection of Personal Data Held by Private Parties (FLPPDHPP) establishes that it a crime for an individual authorised to process data to cause a breach in the security of the databases under their custody with the intent of profit-seeking. This crime is sanctioned with imprisonment of three months to three years. When personal data is processed through deceit with the intention of earning a profit, by taking advantage of a misbelief of the data owner or authorised person transferring the information, the sanction is six months to five years of imprisonment. In both cases, if such information is sensitive, the penalties will be doubled.

Trade Secrets

The Federal Law for the Protection of Industrial Property (Ley Federal de Protección a la Propiedad Industrial; LPIP) establishes trade secret-related crimes in subsections III and VI of Article 402. The sanction is imprisonment of two to six years and fines of 2,000–500,000 UMAs for the disclosure, misappropriation, use or acquisition of a trade secret, without right and consent, with the intention of obtaining a benefit or causing damage to the trade secret’s owner or holder.

The FFC establishes the crime of smuggling in Articles 102, 103 and 105. Importing or exporting merchandise or goods without total or partial payment of the compensations or countervailing duties required is a crime, as is not using the necessary permits and importing or exporting prohibited goods. Other examples of smuggling include:

• temporary importation, in accordance with Article 108 of the Customs Law, in the absence of maquiladora or export programmes authorised by the Ministry of Economy for the merchandise in question;

• temporary importation when the maquiladora or export programme is no longer in force;
• temporary importation to companies without export programmes authorised by the Ministry of Economy – or whose programmes have expired – or where the merchandise is not covered by the programmes; and

• returning merchandise imported temporarily for which such return is prohibited under Article 106 of the Customs Law.

Pursuant to Article 104 of the FFC, the crime of smuggling is sanctioned with imprisonment of three months to nine years. The penalty will depend on the amount of the contributions or countervailing duties omitted, and the involvement of prohibited goods; the penalty could increase from three months to three years if the smuggling is aggravated.

Concealment is defined in the FCC and the local Criminal Codes. Under the FCC, the following constitute concealment and are sanctioned with three months to three years of imprisonment and 15–60 fine-days:

• acquiring, receiving or concealing the proceeds of a crime, while being aware of their origin and having a profit-seeking intention;
• providing any form of assistance or co-operation to the perpetrator of a crime, with knowledge of the criminal act after its commission; and
• engaging in activities that facilitate the concealment of the perpetrator – or the instruments, objects or proceeds of the crime – or otherwise impeding the investigation.

It is unlikely that the same individual will be held criminally responsible for both the predicate offence and the crime of concealment, since the perpetrator is not compelled to self-incriminate. Legal entities can be indicted for concealment.

In general terms, anyone who conspires with or assists another in committing a crime can held responsible, depending on the contribution to the criminal act, including those who:

• plan or prepare the act’s commission;
• intentionally incite another to commit a crime;
• intentionally assist or aid another in the commission of a crime; and
• after the crime has been committed, assist the offender in the fulfilment of a promise made prior to the crime.

Money laundering is classified as an autonomous crime under Mexican legislation – ie, is independent of any prior crime, as specified in Article 400 bis of the FCC. The crime of money laundering involves resources, rights or assets of any nature derived from illicit activities, or profits from criminal acts, when the legitimate origin cannot be proved. The following scenarios constitute money laundering:

• acquiring, managing, transferring or handling resources, rights or assets, within or outside the country, while knowing they derive from illicit activities; and
• concealing, or attempting to hide, the nature, origin or details of resources, rights or assets, with knowledge of their illicit origin.

Penalties for the crime of money laundering range from five to 15 years of imprisonment and 1,000–5,000 fine-days. In Mexico, money laundering is also addressed from an administrative perspective. The Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Transactions Involving Illicit Funds (the “AML Law”) identifies a series of activities classified as “vulnerable activities”, and individuals engaged in such activities are required to fulfil specific obligations. Individuals engaged in vulnerable activities who fail to comply with the obligations set forth by the AML Law may be subject to fines of up to 10,000 UMAs.

The authority enforcing the AML Law is the Financial Intelligence Unit, which operates under the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit, and Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office is responsible for investigating money laundering falling under its jurisdiction as a federal crime.

The FCC, in Article 414, defines carrying out activities illicitly, or without applying proper security measures, as a federal crime in the case of substances considered as dangerous (corrosive, reactive, explosive, toxic, flammable, radioactive, etc). The activities listed are producing, storing, importing, exporting, transporting and disposing, among others. This crime is sanctioned with imprisonment of one to nine years and fines of 300–3,000 fine-days; legal entities can also be indicted.

In June 2024, the General Law to Prevent, Punish, and Eradicate Crimes Related to Human Trafficking and for the Protection and Assistance to the Victims of these Crimes (the “Human Trafficking Law”) was amended to include subsection IV in its Article 21, according to which exploiting one or more persons for labour purposes is a form of human trafficking or modern slavery punishable by three to ten years of imprisonment and a fine of 5,000–50,000 days.

Labour exploitation occurs when a person unlawfully obtains, directly or indirectly, an unjustified benefit, whether economic or otherwise, through the work of others, subjecting the person to practices that infringe their dignity, such as "work shifts exceeding the limits stipulated by law”.

As of today, Mexican legislation does not contemplate any offences relating to the misuse of AI, algorithmic trading or automated decision-making in financial or commercial contexts.

As of today, in Mexico there are no specific crimes related to crypto-assets, blockchain-based assets or digital currencies, other than the one detailed in Article 119 of the LRFTI (see 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law).

The AML Law considers virtual/crypto-asset exchange a vulnerable activity, so exchanges and wallet providers are obliged to report to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit their clients’ activities when the transaction value is equal to or higher than MXN23,759.40 (210 times the daily value of the UMA), or when the service fee for the transaction is equal to or greater than MXN452.56 (four times the daily value of the UMA). Altering or modifying information, documentation, data or images included in the reports that exchanges and wallet providers are obliged to present to the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit is considered a criminal offence under Article 62 of the AML Law, which is sanctioned with two to eight years of imprisonment and fines of 500–2,000 fine-days.

In general terms, the primary defence for a company is having a criminal compliance programme in place as, to indict a legal entity, it must be proven that a lack of proper controls within the organisation led to or facilitated the commission of a crime commission by its shareholders, representatives, officers, executives, employees or any other person connected with it.

There are no industries or sectors exempt from white-collar offences; however, some white-collar crimes have de minimis exceptions. For instance, the crime of concealment will not be punishable when there is a failure to render assistance to the authorities upon request during a criminal investigation, if the perpetrator under investigation is an ascendant or descendant relative. Likewise, Article 248 of the Criminal Code of Mexico City provides that no penalty will be imposed for fraud and fraudulent management, among other crimes against property, when:

• the damage does not exceed a value of 50 UMAs;
• the crime was committed without violence;
• it is the first time the perpetrator has committed a crime; and
• the victim is indemnified before the case is prosecuted.

Mexico has an abbreviated procedure, which expedites the conclusion of criminal proceedings upon payment of compensation to the victim and the accused admitting their responsibility for the charges presented by the public prosecutor, without a trial and on the basis of the evidence collected thus far.

The benefit of entering into an abbreviated procedure is that the penalties are reduced. Also, in some cases, the public prosecutor has discretional power to not prosecute; the guidelines are issued by Mexico’s Attorney General’s Office and the 32 state Attorney General’s Offices. For instance, a co-perpetrator of a white-collar crime committed without violence can decide to co-operate with the public prosecutor, whether for the prosecution of a criminal offence worse than the one for which they are being prosecuted or in connection with the same crime. The public prosecutor can decide to dismiss the case against a perpetrator who decides to co-operate and agrees to appear at the trial as a witness.

If a person denounces a crime or testifies in connection with it, the Federal Law for the Protection of Persons that Intervene in Criminal Procedures applies. Most Mexican states have local laws for the protection of persons and witnesses involved in criminal proceedings. Additionally, the Federal and States’ Attorney General’s Offices have provided means for making reports of crime anonymous.

The protective measures for such individuals are focused on physical, psychological, patrimonial and family aspects. Among such measures are constant surveillance by the relevant authority, forbidding the disclosure of the individual’s identity and the assurance of the individual being safely removed to another place when needed – or, in certain cases, being granted a new identity if strictly necessary due to potential risks.

There are no general incentives for whistle-blowers reporting white-collar crimes. However, a specific incentive is seen in economic competition crimes, under Article 254 bis of the FCC in connection with Article 103 of the FECL, according to which there will be no criminal liability for an economic agent if:

• it is the first economic agent involved in a monopolistic practice to provide sufficient supporting evidence to allow the Federal Economic Competition Commission to initiate an investigation;
• the economic agent co-operates throughout the investigation and in the trial; and
• the agent undertakes proper actions to avoid engaging in further unlawful practices.

Lastly, in Mexico, International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 37002:2021 (pertaining to whistle-blowing management systems) can be used as a guideline for establishing internal procedures and strategies for protecting and supporting whistle-blowers.

Defence strategies are affected when no international treaties exist to support bilateral or multilateral co-operation between the countries where crimes were committed, delaying or even preventing the exchange of information and/or evidence necessary for the case.

The criminal liability of legal entities is a topic that is drawing the attention of the authorities, and therefore raising awareness among companies of the need to prevent crimes from being committed. Federal and states lawmakers have submitted several bill proposals to their respective Congresses amending the Federal and States Criminal Codes, respectively. The goal is to more extensively and exhaustively regulate the rules applicable to criminal liability, including specifying the elements required for internal control within an organisation and the extenuating circumstances that reduce penalties. Therefore, amendments to the Criminal Codes relating to corporate criminal liability can be expected in the coming years.