MEXICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jonathan Adams and Claudia Aguilar, Baker McKenzie
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 uncon - stitutional the sixth paragraph of Article 421 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure because it oblig - es 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 lia - bility 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, negli - gent 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 “ben - efit or advantage” is no longer limited to financial gain. Any form of utility, whether economic, reputational, operational or otherwise, resulting from the commis - sion 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 crimi - nal court must go beyond merely citing the applicable legal provision. The criminal trial court must also pro - vide 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 envi - ronment, 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 stand - ards increasingly recognise criminal compliance programmes, also known as crime prevention pro - grammes, 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 resil - ience.
200 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook