MEXICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Alejandro Mendiola Diaz, Pedro Isaac Alcalá Berhouague and Benjamín Uriel Salinas Morales, Nader, Hayaux & Goebel
5.4 Sanctions and Penalties in Criminal Proceedings Cartel conduct is classified as a criminal offence under Article 254 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code, which provides for prison sentences rang - ing from five to ten years and monetary fines from 1,000 to 10,000 times the daily value of the Uni- dad de Medida y Actualización (UMA). The UMA is the official economic reference unit in Mexican law used to calculate the amount of fines, fees, and other legal obligations. As of March 2025, total fines can range from roughly USD5,800 (MXN108,570) to USD58,000 (MXN1,085,700). Criminal sanctions are individualised by the pre - siding judge according to the role and degree of responsibility of each participant in the cartel. The judge applies the principle of proportion - ality, considering aggravating or mitigating cir - cumstances under criminal law. These sanctions may only be imposed following a formal criminal procedure initiated by the Federal Attorney Gen - eral’s Office and resolved by a criminal federal court. The competition agencies have no role in pro - posing criminal penalties or calculating fines during these proceedings. Their role is limited to filing the initial complaint, often based on evi - dence collected during the administrative inves - tigation. In criminal proceedings, sanctions are not pre- set or automatic. They result from a contested process, where the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and the applicable standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt” . 5.5 History of Criminal Sanctions No individual has been imprisoned in Mexico for cartel conduct to date, and there are no known extraditions or foreign convictions. Although
cartel conduct is a criminal offence under Mexi - can law, enforcement remains primarily admin - istrative. As of April 2025, at least two criminal investigations are ongoing before the Federal Attorney General’s Office, but no final convic - tions have been issued. 5.6 Relevance of Effective Compliance Programmes While the agencies encourage the adoption of antitrust compliance programmes, these are not considered a mitigating factor in sanctioning hard-core cartel conduct. Sanctions are imposed per se once liability is established, regardless of preventive efforts. Compliance measures may be relevant in other contexts – such as merger review, but not for reducing fines in cartel cases. 5.7 Mandatory Consumer Redress Sanctions imposed by Mexican competition authorities are administrative and do not include mandatory consumer redress. Affected consum - ers may only seek compensation through sepa - rate civil litigation, and only after a final agency decision. The existence of private litigation does not affect the scope of agency-imposed sanc - tions. 5.8 Judicial Review or Appeal Decisions by COFECE or IFT can only be challenged through an amparo lawsuit before Mexico’s specialised federal courts. This con - stitutional review addresses procedural or sub - stantive violations. Appeals may be filed before specialised appellate courts. While amparo proceedings are relatively common in cartel cases, most agency decisions are upheld, with only limited aspects modified or overturned. No other remedies exist to challenge enforcement decisions.
214 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook