Anti-money laundering in Mexico: who faces criminal risk

When the authority presumes that an operation was carried out with funds of illicit origin, a serious problem begins.

Rebutting that presumption proves complex because the burden of proof is reversed, leaving the taxpayer obligated to provide an explanation.

It is often thought that this scenario is reserved for those who qualify as regulated entities under the well-known anti-money laundering law, that is, those who carry out vulnerable activities, whether or not they belong to the financial sector.

But in reality, it reaches far more people.

This is a matter that all taxpayers must address, whether or not we are financial entities or DNFBPs (Designated Non-Financial Businesses and Professions), as this law refers to them.

Today, any operation that the SAT (Tax Administration Service) does not fully understand is automatically presumed to be a money laundering operation, even if it is not directly related to any specific offense.

It only takes something to deviate from the expected pattern for the machinery to start moving.

Many of these investigations ultimately collapse for lack of support.

That outcome, however, arrives late, after a considerable amount of time.

The mere fact of appearing in a file of this nature generates serious inconveniences, particularly due to the well-known list of blocked persons, whose effects are felt long before anyone determines whether there was any reason to open the investigation.

The belief that anti-money laundering matters concern only regulated entities under the law is something that must be clarified and pointed out.

For them, there is a series of obligations whose noncompliance gives rise to administrative sanctions.

The criminal dimension operates on another level and may be triggered against any individual or legal entity, regardless of its line of business, by the mere fact of appearing directly or indirectly in a scheme that the authority deems suspicious.

Investigations of this kind are opened with increasing frequency, which is why our advice is that all taxpayers prioritize the proper safekeeping of documents and maintain sound accounting practices.

Today’s standard demands much more than before.

The contract once used to justify an operation is no longer sufficient, because it is also necessary to document the prior steps that led to that operation and the manner in which the contract was performed.

It sounds complicated, and in a way it is, because the applicable set of rules has been built that way, layer upon layer.

But in practice, it is simpler than it seems.

It is a matter of prioritizing order, so as to be prepared to establish the legitimacy of all operations on the day they come to be questioned.

Sources

• Ley Federal para la Prevención e Identificación de Operaciones con Recursos de Procedencia Ilícita (Cámara de Diputados (Chamber of Deputies))

Este artículo es información general y no sustituye una consulta sobre su caso. Si enfrenta una situación relacionada, exponga el asunto por el formulario y un abogado del despacho le llama el mismo día hábil.

Agendar consulta