On April 6, 2026, Mexico’s Supreme Court (the “SCJN”) upheld, by majority vote, the constitutionality of the authority of the Financial Intelligence Unit (Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera, the “UIF”) to order asset-freezing measures over bank accounts without prior judicial authorization, in the context of constitutional challenge (acción de inconstitucionalidad) No. 58/2022.
This decision represents a significant shift from prior precedent, expanding the scope of the UIF’s authority beyond scenarios strictly linked to requests from foreign authorities and consolidating an approach under which asset-freezing is characterized as a preventive administrative measure, capable of being implemented immediately.
In this regard, the SCJN recognizes a broader operational mandate for the UIF within Mexico’s antimoney laundering and counter-terrorism financing framework, allowing the adoption of measures that directly affect the availability of funds without prior judicial intervention, under the rationale of safeguarding the integrity of the financial system.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, this framework also entails a recalibration of the balance between the State’s powers and the rights of affected parties by deferring judicial oversight to a subsequent stage, thereby giving rise to significant constitutional implications, particularly in relation to due process, the right to be heard, and legal certainty.
The decision carries significant implications for financial institutions, intermediaries, fiduciaries, and market participants more broadly, particularly with respect to the immediate implementation of regulatory instructions, the management of operational and reputational risks, and the design of timely legal strategies in response to restrictive measures.
I. Nature of the Measure: Preventive and Administrative
The authority of the UIF to instruct the freezing of accounts is grounded within the regulatory framework for the prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing, particularly under the Credit Institutions Law (Ley de Instituciones de Crédito, the “LIC”) and the general provisions governing the establishment and operation of the Blocked Persons List.
The SCJN held that the freezing of accounts constitutes an administrative precautionary measure, aimed at protecting the integrity of the financial system and preventing illicit transactions.
In this context:
- It does not entail a determination of criminal liability;
- It does not replace or encroach upon the powers of the Public Prosecutor’s Office; and
- It is justified as an urgent measure within the preventive regulatory framework.
II. Expansion of the UIF’s Authority
Under this new criterion, the UIF benefits from an expanded scope of action, as it may:
- Order the freezing of bank accounts without prior judicial authorization;
- Act based on indicia of money laundering or terrorist financing activities; and
- Exercise its powers within an administrative preventive framework, even in the absence of a direct request from foreign authorities.
This development represents a material expansion of the UIF’s operational powers.
III. Absence of Prior Judicial Review and Subsequent Legal Challenge
One of the most significant aspects of the ruling is that asset-freezing measures may be implemented without prior judicial intervention, with legality subject to review at a later stage.
Affected parties must therefore:
- Resort to the corresponding administrative mechanisms before the UIF; and/or
- Challenge the measure.
As a result, access to funds is restricted prior to any effective judicial review by a competent authority.
IV. Constitutional Tensions
During the deliberations, several relevant constitutional tensions were identified, particularly in relation to:
- The right to be heard;
- Due process;
- Legal certainty; and
- Potential interference with property rights.
While the SCJN upheld the measure, these elements remain relevant for purposes of contesting an act of authority under Article 116 Bis 2 of the LIC.
V. Implications for the Financial System
The adopted criterion has immediate effects on the operation of the financial system:
a) Mandatory implementation
Financial institutions are required to comply promptly with asset-freezing instructions issued by the UIF.
b) Operational impact
Such measures may result in:
- Disruption of cash flows;
- Contractual defaults; and
- Significant reputational impact.
c) Increased regulatory exposure
The importance of the following is heightened:
- Anti-money laundering (AML) compliance frameworks;
- Transaction monitoring systems; and
- Ongoing client and counterparty risk assessments.
VI. Risk Areas and Strategic Considerations
In practice, scenarios may arise in which the scope of the UIF’s powers is broadened through the linkage of domestic investigations with international cooperation frameworks.
In this context, it becomes critical to:
- Assess the adequacy of the legal grounds and reasoning supporting asset-freezing measures; and,
- Develop timely and technically robust legal strategies.
VII. Practical Recommendations
In light of this development, we recommend that financial system participants:
- Review and strengthen internal protocols for responding to bank account freezing orders;
- Ensure proper traceability and documentation of transactions; and
- Review immediate legal response strategies to address restrictive measures.
VIII. Available Remedies and Legal Strategies
In the event of the freezing of bank accounts, the LIC provides for an administrative review procedure before the UIF, pursuant to which a resolution must be issued determining whether the imposed freeze should be lifted.
In turn, there are grounds for defense that may be invoked, and on which we can elaborate further if necessary.
IX. Final Considerations
The ruling of the SCJN consolidates a framework under which authorities may impose restrictive measures on an immediate basis, deferring judicial oversight to a subsequent stage of review.
This model, inherently preventive in nature, prioritizes the State’s ability to respond swiftly to risks associated with money laundering and terrorist financing, enabling the adoption of measures with immediate effects on the availability of funds and the operational continuity of financial system participants.
However, this reconfiguration of the balance between administrative authority and judicial control raises significant constitutional considerations, particularly in connection with the absence of prior judicial review, the potential disproportionate impact on property rights, as well as the burden placed on affected parties to activate defensive mechanisms on a reactive basis.
