In brief
On 6 April 2026, the Plenary Session of the Supreme Court of Justice (“SCJN”) confirmed the constitutionality of Article 116 Bis 2 of the Credit Institutions Law (CIL), strengthening the legal framework that allows the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) to order the freezing of bank accounts as an administrative, precautionary, and preventive measure, which may be adopted without prior judicial order, provided that there are “sufficient indicia” of a possible connection to operations involving proceeds of illicit origin (money laundering or ML), terrorism financing (TF), or offenses that have a direct, functional, or instrumental relation to ML or TF.
It should be noted that the FIU does not notify private parties of their inclusion in the Blocked Persons List. Notification is carried out through the financial institutions in which the parties have contracted products and services. Once notified by the financial institution, private parties may challenge their inclusion before the FIU.
Considering the foregoing, we recommend implementing prevention and monitoring programs to promptly respond in the event you, your vendors or customers are named in the Blocked Persons List.
In more detail
What did the SCJN decide?
The SCJN ruled that the inclusion of private parties in the Blocked Persons List and the consequent freezing of bank accounts, as regulated in Article 116 Bis 2 of the CIL, is an administrative, preventive measure aimed at containing immediate risks to the financial system and interrupting the flow of potentially illicit funds.
The SCJN indicated that the freezing of accounts does not constitute a declaration of guilt, nor does it replace the functions of the Prosecutor’s Office, who retains exclusive authority to investigate and prosecute crimes. In contrast, it established the FIU acts as an auxiliary body within a framework focused on the prevention and early detection of risks related to ML/TF.
Additionally, the SCJN stated that the now-validated provision regulates a specific administrative procedure, with clear stages, defined timeframes, and requires a grounded and justified resolution to request the inclusion of private parties in the aforementioned list.
In this regard, the SCJN determined that the “sufficient indicia” standard is constitutionally valid for freezing bank accounts, both in domestic and international proceedings (as explained further below). Only objective evidence is required to make it reasonably likely that a relevant ML/TF risk exists for the financial system, without the need to prove that a crime was committed.
The SCJN emphasized that the asset affectation resulting from the account freezing is neither definitive nor absolute, as the regulatory framework guarantees sufficient procedural safeguards, such as the right to challenge the resolution before administrative courts and, through amparo proceedings. Under this understanding, the SCJN considers that the constitutional standard is satisfied not by the absence of impact, but by the existence of effective and reviewable controls in the face of a preventive measure.
What are the FIU and the Blocked Persons List?
The FIU, which operates under the Secretary of Finance and Public Credit, collects and analyzes financial information to prevent ML and TF offenses. Its primary tool within the financial system is the Blocked Persons List, which results in the freezing of bank accounts of any private party included on such list.
In which cases may inclusion in the Blocked Persons List occur?
Individuals and legal entities may be included on the Blocked Persons List for various reasons, among others: (i) inclusion on lists adopted pursuant to resolutions of the United Nations Security Council; (ii) information provided by national or foreign authorities or international organizations, based on indicia of ML or TF; (iii) conviction under ML or TF offenses; (iv) links to activities that assist or are related to ML or TF; (v) concealment or omission of information that prevents identification of the origin, destination, or ownership of funds; and (vi) specific tax‑related grounds, such as the issuance of tax invoices without having the infrastructure required to provide services or to offer products.
Pursuant to the standard sustained by the SCJN, the existence of duly documented “sufficient indicia” provides the basis for the inclusion of private parties on the Blocked Persons List.
What was the previous standard and what changed?
Previously, the SCJN determined that bank account freezing without a judicial order was constitutional only in cases related to the fulfillment of international commitments, requiring the request for the freeze to be expressly made by a foreign authority.
The SCJN has now concluded that such interpretation weakened the preventive model, left domestically originated freezes without constitutional coverage, and placed Mexico in a position of misalignment with international ML and TF standards. The new standard recognizes the validity of a fully regulated domestic administrative procedure, without varying from international standards.
FIU position following the ruling
Following the SCJN’s decision, the FIU reiterated that the bank accounts freezing is neither political nor punitive but rather constitutes a preventive and temporary measure aimed at interrupting financial flows of potentially illicit origin and protecting the integrity of the financial system.
Recommendations
Following the SCJN’s validation of account freezes based on indicia, the following measures are recommended:
- Establish or update immediate-response protocols for account freezes ordered by the FIU, incorporating: (i) effective communication with financial institutions; (ii) preservation of documentary support for completed transactions; (iii) clear procedures to ensure operational continuity, both preventive and reactive/corrective, including the designation of responsible teams within each organization to implement such procedures, as well as their steps, timelines, and mitigation mechanisms; and (iv) the development of a robust strategy to challenge the corresponding resolution.
- Strengthen internal controls in accordance with applicable legislation, including customer identification and verification, transaction monitoring, funds tracing, preventive internal audits, staff training, and document retention, in order to minimize ML/TF risks.
- Review exposure arising from counterparties, vendors, and business partners (including periodic list screenings, risk indicators, and ML/TF contractual clauses) to mitigate related risks.
If you wish to assess the impact of this determination on your day-to-day operations, please contact the Baker McKenzie team, who would be pleased to assist you with such analysis.