In brief
The Mexican Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) ruled that amparo Judges must deny injunctions against bank account seizures ordered by the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) when lifting such measures could facilitate transactions involving transactions with illicit resources or affect the financial system.
The decision complements the SCJN’s April 2026 precedent, which upheld the FIU’s authority to order account seizures without a prior court order in domestic investigations. Companies should revisit their response protocols, supporting documentation, and defense strategies in light of this development.
Key takeaways
What did the SCJN resolve?
When resolving the Injunction Ancillary Procedure No. 1/2026, the SCJN analyzed a definitive injunction granted by a federal district court ordering the lifting of an account seizure imposed by the FIU. The district court had concluded that the seizure did not derive from an international obligation and that lifting it would neither affect public interest nor public order.
The SCJN revoked that determination and denied the definitive injunction. The SCJN resolved that the FIU’s authority to order account seizures in domestic investigations has already been recognized as constitutional and that this single circumstance, does not create a sufficient appearance of likelihood of success on the merits to justify suspending the measure.
How does this decision relate to the April 2026 precedent?
This ruling complements the precedent adopted by the SCJN in April 2026, through which the SCJN confirmed the constitutionality of Article 116 Bis 2 of the Credit Institutions Law and determined the validity of the FIU’s authority to order account seizures in domestic investigations. While that precedent focused on the constitutional validity of the seizure measure itself, this subsequent decision establishes the parameters for determining whether an injunction is available in amparo proceedings challenging such seizures.
Why can a procedural stay against an account seizure affect public interest and public order?
The SCJN emphasized that an account seizure constitutes a preventive administrative measure designed to prevent funds allegedly linked to unlawful activities from continuing to circulate within the financial system.
Accordingly, the SCJN concluded that allowing accounts to be unfrozen through an injunction may facilitate the transfer, dispersion, or concealment of assets under investigation and may undermine the integrity of the financial system. The SCJN further reasoned that granting an injunction would effectively anticipate the consequences of a favorable judgment before the merits of the case are decided, potentially rendering ineffective the principal proceeding.
Which precedents were overruled?
The SCJN interrupted binding precedents 2a./J. 87/2019 (10th Epoch) and 2a./J. 117/2024 (11th Epoch), both issued by the former Second Chamber of the SCJN, finding that their underlying premises are no longer compatible with the current constitutional and statutory framework. Those precedents were based on the notion that the injunctions granted against account seizures did not affect public interest or public order and relied on an interpretation limiting the constitutionality of account seizures to cases linked to international commitments or express foreign requests.
What is the impact of the amendment to the Amparo Law?
The decision is also grounded in the amendment to Article 129 of the Amparo Law, published on 16 October 2025, which expressly requires courts to deny injunctions where such relief could facilitate transactions involving illicit resources derived or affect the financial system. That same amendment, however, allows affected persons, under certain circumstances, to access funds necessary to pay salaries, satisfy support obligations, and cover certain basic subsistence needs.
Does the decision eliminate available legal remedies?
No. The decision does not prevent individuals or entities from challenging either the account seizure itself or their inclusion on the Blocked Persons List. The SCJN reiterated that such measures remain subject to judicial review and available legal remedies. What changes is that a challenge will no longer necessarily enable the affected party to obtain interim relief lifting the seizure while the merits of the dispute are being resolved.
What are the implications for companies and individuals?
The ruling strengthens the FIU’s authority to adopt preventive measures that may significantly affect the assets and property interests of the persons targeted by such actions. At the same time, it substantially reduces the possibility of obtaining interim judicial protection (injunction) to mitigate the practical effects of those measures, including access to seized accounts during the development of the legal proceedings.
For companies and individuals, this means that an account seizure may produce immediate operational consequences affecting payments, payroll, credit facilities, suppliers, and liquidity, even where the measure remains subject to challenge. As a result, maintaining robust documentation regarding the source, destination, and traceability of funds, as well as implementing response and defense protocols for potential seizures, become increasingly important.
Call to action
In light of this new precedent, we recommend considering the following measures:
- Review and update immediate response protocols for FIU-ordered account seizure, including internal escalation procedures, communications with financial institutions, and preservation of supporting documentation.
- Strengthen documentary records regarding the source, use, and traceability of funds, particularly in connection with material transactions, unusual transactions, third-party payments, group structures, financing arrangements, and relationships with higher-risk customers or suppliers.
- Assess exposure arising from commercial counterparties, including customers, suppliers, shareholders, intermediaries, agents, and other third parties, through due diligence procedures, ongoing monitoring, and screening against applicable lists.
If you would like to assess the impact of this decision on your operations, please contact the Baker McKenzie team, who would be pleased to assist you.