White-Collar Crime in Mexico: Legal Reforms, Enforcement Trends and Institutional Shifts (2024–2025)

White-collar crime in Mexico has undergone significant transformation over the past year, driven by institutional reforms, regulatory updates, and high-profile cases that have reshaped the legal and corporate landscape. As the country intensifies its efforts to combat financial crime and corruption, both the public and private sectors face increasing pressure to strengthen compliance, transparency and accountability. This article explores the key trends, legal developments and enforcement challenges that define Mexico’s current approach to white-collar crime.

Brief overview of white-collar crime in Mexico

In Mexico, white-collar crime has gained greater relevance since the implementation of the corporate criminal liability regime in 2014, as part of a constitutional reform that transformed the criminal justice system into an accusatory model. This regime represented a significant shift from the traditional view that only individuals could be held criminally responsible. Under this regime, companies can be prosecuted for crimes committed in their name, for their benefit, or using their resources, regardless of whether the individuals involved are also prosecuted.

To hold a company criminally liable under Mexico’s corporate criminal liability regime, prosecutors must establish that the crime was enabled or facilitated by the absence of adequate internal controls, oversight or compliance mechanisms within the organisation. As a result, there has been growing scrutiny of corporate compliance programmes, risk management frameworks, and ethical standards. Companies are now expected to implement and maintain effective policies that detect and prevent criminal behaviour, such as anti-corruption protocols, robust and effective internal controls, whistle-blower systems, and regular audits. Failure to do so exposes them not only to reputational damage, but also to potential criminal prosecution, fines and operational restrictions.

Recent trends in criminal enforcement and prosecution

Over the past year, Mexican federal authorities have intensified their efforts to combat white-collar crime, focusing primarily on crimes related to tax fraud, smuggling, money laundering, and fuel theft (commonly known as huachicol). These efforts are in response to specific dynamics described below. While other socially significant crimes, such as corruption, are also part of the federal government’s criminal policy, there is currently no official data available to show their evolution or confirm an increase in their enforcement.

Tax crimes

Over the past year, Mexico has experienced a significant tightening of criminal tax policy, driven by constitutional reforms, judicial criteria, and new powers granted to the Mexican tax authority. This change has created a more aggressive environment for the prosecution of tax crimes, especially in the following areas.

On 31 December 2024, an amendment to Article 19 of the Mexican Constitution was enacted, expanding the list of crimes subject to mandatory pretrial detention. The reform now includes crimes such as smuggling and activities involving the use of fraudulent tax receipts (Comprobante Fiscal Digital por Internet or CFDIs).

In parallel, the Mexican Tax Administration Service (Servicio de Administración Tributaria or SAT) and the Attorney General’s Office have intensified enforcement efforts, particularly in foreign trade operations. These include increased inspections and audits aimed at combating smuggling, tax fraud, and the issuance of false tax receipts. These actions are part of the SAT’s 2025 Master Plan, which also incorporates artificial intelligence tools to detect patterns of tax evasion and improve risk-based oversight.

The Mexican tax authorities have increasingly relied on Article 69-B of the Federal Fiscal Code to address simulated transactions and tax fraud. This provision allows the SAT to presume that a taxpayer’s operations are non-existent if they lack the infrastructure, personnel or assets to support the issuance of digital tax receipts. Entities identified as issuing or using false invoices – known as Empresas que Facturan Operaciones Simuladas (EFOS) and Empresas que Deducen Operaciones Simuladas (EDOS) – face serious consequences, including the cancellation of digital seals, denial of tax deductions, and potential criminal prosecution.

According to official data reported by Mexico’s tax authority, the prosecution of tax-related crimes has increased significantly in recent years, particularly against companies involved in such crimes. This contrasts with the number of criminal cases initiated against individuals – although prosecutions against individuals have dipped slightly, prosecutions against companies increased by over 50% from 2022 to 2024 as the following figures show:

• in 2022, there were 400 cases against individuals and 427 against companies;
• in 2023, there were 396 cases against individuals and 546 against companies; and
• in 2024, there were 378 cases against individuals and 648 against companies.

Fuel theft

In recent years, Mexico has significantly expanded its strategy to combat fuel theft, known locally as huachicol. Initially focused on physical theft from pipelines, enforcement efforts have evolved to address more complex schemes involving fuel smuggling, tax fraud, and the use of false invoices – commonly referred to as huachicol fiscal.

The authorities have shifted to a multi-layered approach that includes criminal prosecution, financial intelligence, and inter-agency co-ordination. Enforcement actions in 2025 have intensified, with large-scale operations across multiple states targeting fuel trafficking networks involving public officials (including the Marines, who have administered customs since 2022), customs agents and private companies. These networks often operate through ports such as Altamira, Veracruz, Ensenada and Lázaro Cárdenas, using falsified documentation to import fuel illegally and distribute it without regulatory authorisation.

The SAT and the Attorney General’s Office have also identified hundreds of companies linked to organised crime, and have seized millions of litres of fuel in recent months. The economic impact is substantial, with fuel theft now considered the second-largest source of income for criminal organisations in Mexico, second only to drug trafficking.

This shift reflects a broader effort by the Mexican government to integrate fiscal enforcement with national security priorities, using tools such as artificial intelligence, real-time audits and legal reforms to disrupt illicit fuel markets.

Money laundering

In recent years, Mexico’s Financial Intelligence Unit (Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera or UIF) has significantly expanded its role in combating money laundering, evolving from a reactive data processor to a strategic actor in financial crime enforcement. A key aspect of this evolution has been the strengthening of its co-ordination with the Attorney General’s Office.

The UIF now works closely with the Attorney General’s Office to transform financial intelligence into actionable criminal investigations. This collaboration includes the exchange of intelligence reports, joint participation in inter-agency task forces, and the filing of formal criminal complaints based on suspicious financial activity.

This partnership has also led to joint operations involving asset seizures, account freezes, and the identification of individuals and companies linked to organised crime. The UIF’s preventative measures – such as blocking bank accounts – are often followed by legal proceedings initiated by the Attorney General’s Office, ensuring that financial disruptions are backed by prosecutorial action.

Despite these advances, challenges remain. Judicial constraints and structural limitations have complicated enforcement. Nonetheless, the UIF and Attorney General’s Office alliance represents a critical pillar in Mexico’s anti-money laundering strategy, combining intelligence, legal authority and operational capacity to target high-impact financial crimes.

Key legal and regulatory reforms

In response to growing concerns over financial crime, corruption, and regulatory gaps, Mexico has implemented a series of legal and institutional reforms aimed at strengthening its enforcement framework. This section outlines the most relevant developments and their implications for companies and enforcement agencies.

Mandatory pretrial detention for tax crimes

In December 2024, a constitutional amendment expanded the scope of mandatory pretrial detention under Article 19. The reform added several financial and economic crimes to the list, including smuggling and activities involving false tax receipts. This means that individuals accused of these crimes will be detained while facing criminal proceedings, raising concerns about due process and human rights implications.

One of the main concerns surrounding this measure is its severity and the potential impact on company representatives. This can include key officers, legal representatives and members of the board of directors, who may face mandatory pretrial detention when the companies they represent are under criminal investigation.

Creation of the ABC Secretariat (Anti-Corruption and Good Governance)

In October 2024, the Mexican government officially transformed the former Secretariat of Public Administration into the Secretariat of Anti-Corruption and Good Governance, commonly referred to as the ABC Secretariat. This reform is part of a broader effort to modernise public administration and institutionalise a preventative approach to corruption. Its mandate focuses on preventative oversight, transparency and ethical governance across all levels of public administration.

The Secretariat plays a growing role in the fight against white-collar crime, particularly corruption, by co-ordinating with enforcement agencies, monitoring high-risk public projects, and promoting digital systems that reduce opportunities for bribery. Its preventative approach complements prosecutorial efforts by identifying structural vulnerabilities before misconduct occurs, thereby strengthening the overall framework for accountability and enforcement.

New environmental liability law of Mexico City

In July 2024, Mexico City enacted a new Environmental Liability Law that introduces a robust framework for holding companies criminally accountable for environmental harm. The law establishes direct corporate criminal liability, allowing the authorities to prosecute not only the legal entity but also its key representatives – such as officers, legal representatives and board members – when environmental damage results from negligence or misconduct.

Companies are now exposed to a presumption of criminal liability if they have failed to implement internal compliance systems to prevent environmental crimes. Failure to do so may result in criminal charges, substantial fines and reputational damage. This reform represents a significant shift in environmental governance, emphasising prevention, accountability, and corporate responsibility in urban development and industrial operations.

Anti-money laundering reform

In July 2025, Mexico enacted a major reform of its anti-money laundering framework. As part of this, Article 400 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code was amended to strengthen the legal framework for prosecuting money-laundering offences. The reform clarifies that when illicit financial activities involve institutions within the financial system, the public prosecutor is fully authorised to investigate such conduct. However, to initiate criminal proceedings, a formal complaint from the Ministry of Finance is required, which now holds the legal status of a victim or aggrieved party in these cases.

This change enhances institutional co-ordination between the Ministry of Finance, UIF and the Attorney General’s Office, allowing for more direct and structured collaboration in complex investigations. It also reinforces the role of the UIF, which may now participate in proceedings as a victim, expanding its influence beyond administrative oversight.

Recent judicial criteria

This year, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation and the collegiate courts have issued the following isolated rulings addressing key aspects of the corporate criminal liability regime. Although these opinions do not constitute binding case law, they do represent relevant judicial criteria that are transforming the way in which cases involving companies are investigated and sanctioned in the criminal sphere.

Case 1: Possibility of expanding the list of corporate crimes at the state level

In August 2025, the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional the sixth paragraph of Article 421 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure because it obliges state legislatures to adopt a limited list of crimes attributable to legal entities. This provision infringes on the exclusive jurisdiction of the states in matters of substantive state criminal law. Now, state legislatures are fully empowered to regulate corporate criminal liability without being bound by a restricted list of crimes. This has significant implications because it enables state legislatures to create corporate criminal liability for crimes that were previously not applicable to legal entities. Crimes that may be committed by company employees or other agents, and that now pose a risk for those companies include sexual offences, negligent homicides, or acts of discrimination.

Case 2: Broad interpretation of the legal requirement necessary to prosecute a company, consisting of obtaining an “exclusive benefit or advantage” from the commission of a crime

According to another Supreme Court case from August 2025, the criminal law’s requirement of a “benefit or advantage” is no longer limited to financial gain. Any form of utility, whether economic, reputational, operational or otherwise, resulting from the commission of a crime, may trigger criminal liability for a legal entity. This interpretation requires the courts to assess the nature and impact of the benefit in each case, beyond mere monetary considerations.

Case 3: Requirement of enhanced judicial reasoning in the criminal attribution of legal entities

In February 2025, a circuit court ruling held that when criminal liability is attributed to a legal entity, the criminal court must go beyond merely citing the applicable legal provision. The criminal trial court must also provide substantive reasoning for attributing the crime committed by natural persons to the company. This requirement reflects the distinct nature of criminal attribution to legal entities, which demands a more complex and thorough justification than that applied to individuals.

Looking ahead: legal risks and compliance priorities

Given the complexity of Mexico’s evolving legal environment, companies must take proactive steps to manage the risks associated with corporate criminal liability. This requires adopting a culture of compliance that goes beyond meeting regulatory obligations, and instead focuses on implementing internal measures to prevent, detect and respond to potential white-collar crime risks.

Mexican law and internationally accepted standards increasingly recognise criminal compliance programmes, also known as crime prevention programmes, as effective tools for mitigating such risks. Their value lies not only in reducing liability, but also in demonstrating a company’s commitment to integrity and lawful conduct. In a legal landscape as dynamic as the one Mexico currently faces, operating with robust, risk-based compliance policies is essential to navigating uncertainty and ensuring long-term resilience.