Mexican Supreme Court Upholds UIF Account Freezes
Summary
Mexico's Supreme Court (SCJN) ruled on April 6, 2026 in acción de inconstitucionalidad 58/2022 to uphold Article 116 Bis 2 of the Credit Institutions Law, permitting the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) to freeze bank accounts based on 'sufficient evidence' of involvement in terrorist financing, operations with illicit funds, or related offenses without requiring a court order. The decision eliminates the possibility of obtaining an injunction through an amparo proceeding to unblock accounts, shifting the burden of proof entirely to the affected account holder during a brief administrative hearing. Consequences include immediate transaction paralysis affecting payroll, supplier payments, and tax compliance obligations.
About this source
JD Supra is the legal industry's open library where US and UK law firms publish client alerts, regulatory analysis, and case commentaries. The Finance & Banking section aggregates everything published by partners at firms covering bank supervision, payments, capital markets, fintech, securitization, AML, and consumer finance. Around 400 alerts a month from across the bar. Watch this if you want primary-source law-firm thinking on the latest CFPB rule, OCC bulletin, FCA consultation, or Basel update, before it shows up in trade press. The signal-to-noise ratio is genuinely good because firms only publish when they have something to say to their own clients. GovPing pulls each alert with the firm name, author, and topic.
What changed
The Mexican Supreme Court's ruling in case 58/2022 validates Article 116 Bis 2 of the Credit Institutions Law, confirming the UIF's authority to freeze accounts based solely on 'sufficient evidence'—defined as verifiable objective elements reasonably indicating commission of covered crimes. The Court rejected arguments that this procedure violated the Public Prosecutor's investigative authority or the presumption of innocence, holding that affected parties can refute evidence through administrative proceedings before the UIF itself.
For individuals and entities transacting through the Mexican financial system, the practical implication is severe: being placed on the Blocked Persons List results in immediate operational shutdown with no realistic path to judicial relief via amparo. Account holders must prepare to respond within the brief administrative hearing window by presenting evidence and legal arguments immediately. Financial institutions should also anticipate heightened compliance scrutiny given the discretion UIF retains under the 'sufficient evidence' standard.
Archived snapshot
Apr 23, 2026GovPing captured this document from the original source. If the source has since changed or been removed, this is the text as it existed at that time.
April 23, 2026
Mexican Supreme Court Validates the Blocking of Bank Accounts
On April 6, 2026, the Mexican Supreme Court (“SCJN”), when ruling on the constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) 58/2022, recognized the constitutionality of Article 116 Bis 2 of the Credit Institutions Law (“LIC”), validating the blocking of bank accounts by the Mexican Ministry of the Treasury, through its Financial Intelligence Unit (“UIF”), based on the “Blocked Persons List” when there is sufficient evidence to believe that these persons are involved in crimes of (i) terrorist financing, (ii) operations with illicit funds, or (iii) related offenses. This precedent is of particular relevance for anyone who maintains bank accounts or performs transactions through the Mexican Financial System.
The SCJN ruled that the procedure for blocking accounts provided in Articles 115 and 116 Bis 2 of the LIC by the UIF does not encroach upon the Public Prosecutor’s investigative authority or breach the presumption of innocence, confirming that the tax authority may block a taxpayer’s assets without the need for a prior court order or an ongoing prosecutorial investigation, as long as the account holder refutes the authority’s evidence in the administrative proceeding (which may entail months or even years of freezing).
As a result, the possibility of obtaining an injunction through an amparo proceeding to, if applicable, unblock a bank account is essentially eliminated.
The SCJN determined that the regulation provides legal certainty by establishing a specific administrative defense procedure for those affected before the UIF itself, thereby strengthening its authority to oversee and monitor individuals’ accounts.
From a tax and administrative perspective, the consequences of being included on that list are severe:
- Immediate Operational Shutdown: The suspension of activities, operations, or services takes effect immediately, making it impossible to pay salaries, suppliers, and—critically—to comply with tax obligations in a timely manner.
- Burden of Proof: The existence of “sufficient evidence” is enough for the UIF to block accounts, and it is the affected who are responsible for providing evidence to refute these allegations during the brief period of the administrative hearing established by the LIC. The SCJN upheld the “sufficient evidence” standard granted to the UIF to block bank accounts, as it is sufficient, in the Court’s judgment, for that authority to “have verifiable objective elements that reasonably indicate the commission of one of the crimes” mentioned above; however, this could lead to arbitrary actions by the UIF.
- Risk of Broadening Standards: The SCJN stated that the concept of “associated crimes” is not ambiguous because it refers to the applicable financial framework; however, in administrative practice, the UIF retains significant discretion to initiate such proceedings. The recent SCJN decision emphasizes the importance of taking a proactive approach to regulatory compliance and financial risk prevention.
Given the possibility that UIF could block bank accounts, it is essential that individuals and companies remain prepared to take immediate legal action. The speed and effectiveness with which evidence and legal arguments are presented will be critical to securing the unblocking of affected accounts through appropriate legal remedies.
El 06 de abril de 2026, la Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación (“ SCJN “) al resolver la acción de inconstitucionalidad 58/2022, reconoció la constitucionalidad del artículo 116 Bis 2 de la Ley de Instituciones de Crédito (“ LIC “), validando el bloqueo de cuentas bancarias por parte de la Secretaría de Hacienda, a través de la Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera (“ UIF “) con base en la “Lista de Personas Bloqueadas” cuando existan indicios suficientes de su relación con delitos de (i) financiamiento al terrorismo, (ii) operaciones con recursos de procedencia ilícita o (iii) delitos asociados. Este precedente resulta de especial relevancia para cualquiera que mantenga cuentas bancarias o realice operaciones a través del Sistema Financiero Mexicano.
La SCJN determinó que el procedimiento de bloqueo de cuentas previsto en los artículos 115 y 116 Bis 2 de la LIC por parte de la UIF no invade las facultades de investigación del Ministerio Público ni vulnera el principio de presunción de inocencia, validando que la autoridad hacendaria puede paralizar el patrimonio de un contribuyente sin necesidad de una orden judicial previa o de una investigación ministerial en curso, en tanto el contribuyente desvirtúa en el procedimiento administrativo los indicios de la autoridad (lo cual puede implicar meses o, incluso, años de bloqueo).
Como consecuencia, en la práctica se elimina la posibilidad de obtener una suspensión a través de un juicio de amparo para, en su caso, desbloquear alguna cuenta bancaria.
Sin embargo, la SCJN determinó que la norma otorga certeza jurídica al establecer un procedimiento administrativo de defensa específico para los afectados ante la propia UIF, lo que consolida su poder de fiscalización y control sobre las cuentas de los particulares.
Desde una perspectiva fiscal y administrativa, las consecuencias de ser incluido en esa lista son severas:
- Parálisis Transaccional Inmediata: La suspensión de actos, operaciones o servicios es inmediata, lo que imposibilita el pago de nóminas, proveedores y, críticamente, el cumplimiento oportuno de las obligaciones fiscales ante el SAT.
- Carga de la Prueba: Basta la existencia de “indicios suficientes” para que la UIF congele las cuentas y serán los particulares los que tengan la obligación de aportar pruebas para desvirtuar dichas presunciones durante el breve plazo de la garantía de audiencia administrativa que establece la LIC. La SCJN validó el criterio de “ indicios suficientes ” otorgado a la UIF para incluir y bloquear cuentas bancarias, pues basta, a consideración de la Corte, que esa autoridad “cuente con elementos objetivos verificables, que hagan razonablemente probable la comisión de uno de los delitos” mencionados previamente, sin embargo; esto podría dar pie a actuaciones arbitrarias por parte de la UIF.
- Riesgo de Ampliación de Criterios: La SCJN señaló que el concepto de “ delitos asociados ” no es ambiguo porque remite al marco financiero aplicable; sin embargo, en la práctica administrativa, la UIF mantiene un margen amplio de apreciación importante para iniciar este tipo de procedimientos. La reciente resolución de la SCJN resalta la importancia de adoptar una postura proactiva en materia de cumplimiento regulatorio y prevención de riesgos financieros.
Ante la posibilidad de que la UIF pueda congelar cuentas bancarias, es fundamental que los particulares estén preparados para responder inmediatamente. La rapidez y eficacia en la presentación de pruebas y argumentos legales serán determinantes para lograr el descongelamiento de las cuentas afectadas a través de los medios defensa adecuados.
[View source.]
;) ;) Report
Related Posts
- Mexico Plans to Reactivate Fracking by 2027
- OFAC Sanctions Cartel-Linked Timeshare Resort in Mexico: What Hospitality and Travel Companies Should Know
- Foley Manufacturing Sector Takes the Stage at the Mexican Autopart Industry Association’s 23rd Annual International Automotive Industry Congress in Mexico City
Latest Posts
- Mexican Supreme Court Validates the Blocking of Bank Accounts
- EPA’s Revised National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives: One Year Later See more »
DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.
Attorney Advertising.
©
Foley & Lardner LLP
2026
Written by:
Foley & Lardner LLP Contact + Follow Roberto Arena Reyes Retana + Follow Aldo Cain Mendoza Rodriguez + Follow Patricio Sandoval + Follow
PUBLISH YOUR CONTENT ON JD SUPRA
- ✔ Increased readership
- ✔ Actionable analytics
- ✔ Ongoing writing guidance Join more than 70,000 authors publishing their insights on JD Supra
Published In:
AML/CFT + Follow Banking Sector + Follow Constitutional Challenges + Follow Enforcement Actions + Follow Financial Crimes + Follow Financial Institutions + Follow Government Agencies + Follow Mexico + Follow National Security + Follow Regulatory Authority + Follow Administrative Agency + Follow Constitutional + Follow Finance & Banking + Follow more
Foley & Lardner LLP on:
Named provisions
Related changes
Get daily alerts for JD Supra Finance & Banking
Daily digest delivered to your inbox.
Free. Unsubscribe anytime.
Source
About this page
Every important government, regulator, and court update from around the world. One place. Real-time. Free. Our mission
Source document text, dates, docket IDs, and authority are extracted directly from Foley.
The summary, classification, recommended actions, deadlines, and penalty information are AI-generated from the original text and may contain errors. Always verify against the source document.
Classification
Who this affects
Taxonomy
Browse Categories
Get alerts for this source
We'll email you when JD Supra Finance & Banking publishes new changes.
Subscribed!
Optional. Filters your digest to exactly the updates that matter to you.