Criminal Litigation

Environmental Crimes in Coastal Developments: Criminal Penalties for Developers

March 15, 2026 — Enrique Benet-Gregg

Criminal Law Framework Applicable to Coastal Works: Criminal Liability of Developers in Quintana Roo

Developers operating in the coastal strip of Quintana Roo face regulatory overlap that transforms any technical irregularity into concrete criminal exposure. The system of environmental crimes contained in the Federal Penal Code does not operate in the abstract: it is activated through complaints filed by the Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection (PROFEPA), affected communities, or the Specialized Unit for Environmental Crimes of the General Attorney’s Office of the Republic (FGR), and its consequences include actual imprisonment, permanent suspension of works, and criminal liability of legal entities in accordance with the current Federal Penal Code.

The Environmental Criminal Offense and Its Application to Coastal Works

The Federal Penal Code (CPF) regulates crimes against the environment in its Twenty-Fifth Title, articles 414 through 423. Article 414 imposes a sentence of one to nine years imprisonment on anyone who, without authorization or in violation of the conditions of a previously granted authorization, engages in activities that cause or may cause damage to natural resources, flora, fauna, ecosystems, or the quality of water, soil, or air. The typical conduct does not require consummated damage: proven risk is sufficient to constitute the offense.

Articles 417 and 418 CPF specifically typify the impact on ecosystems with aggravated penalties of two to ten years imprisonment when the conduct affects natural protected areas, mangrove zones, or coastal ecosystems. Article 416 CPF, for its part, addresses atmospheric emissions and violations to air quality, and should not be confused with the provisions for aggravated ecosystem protection in coastal matters that are based on articles 417 and 418. In the context of the Riviera Maya, where significant portions of the coastline are located within or in proximity to natural protected areas (including the Sian Ka’an Biosphere Reserve in the southern part of the state, Cozumel Reefs National Park, Puerto Morelos Reefs National Park, and Tulum National Park), this aggravating factor represents a real risk for poorly structured projects. However, the determination of whether a specific property is located within or in a buffer zone of a protected natural area requires site-by-site verification: it cannot be assumed that any point on the coastline is automatically subject to the protected natural area regime without such analysis.

Federal Jurisdiction and Coordination with State Authorities

An aspect that sophisticated investors must understand from the outset is the basis for federal jurisdiction in this matter. Environmental crimes affecting federal zones (ZOFEMAT, natural protected areas, mangroves) fall under federal jurisdiction by virtue of article 73, section XXIX-G of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which empowers Congress to enact laws establishing the concurrent authority of the federal government, state governments, and municipalities in environmental protection matters. Criminal prosecution of these crimes corresponds to the FGR through its specialized unit for environmental crimes. Nevertheless, the General Attorney’s Office of the State of Quintana Roo retains concurrent jurisdiction over violations of state ecological legislation and may open parallel investigations, creating a dual exposure: federal and state simultaneously. This duality requires that criminal-environmental due diligence contemplate both jurisdictions from the project structuring phase.

ZOFEMAT: Occupation Without Concession as a Source of Liability

The Federal Maritime-Terrestrial Zone (ZOFEMAT) is defined in article 119 of the General Law on National Assets (LGBN) as a twenty-meter strip on beaches, measured from the line of ordinary maximum high water, in accordance with article 119 LGBN. Its use and exploitation require a concession granted by the Secretary of Infrastructure, Communications and Transportation (SICT), in accordance with article 126 of the same law. Construction, installation of tourism infrastructure, or modification of topography within ZOFEMAT without a valid concession simultaneously constitutes an administrative infraction under the LGBN and a situation of illegal occupation of public domain assets, which may result in criminal liability under article 287 CPF relating to dispossession of another’s property, when it is argued that the State is the owner of the affected property.

Additionally, the General Law on Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA), in articles 28 and 30, requires prior Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for any work or activity in the coastal zone, wetlands, and mangroves. Commencing works without a favorable EIA resolution, or in violation of its conditions, directly constitutes the offense under article 414 CPF.

Mangroves: The Ecosystem with the Greatest Effective Criminal Protection

The mangrove is the ecosystem that, in procedural practice, generates the greatest number of investigation files in Quintana Roo. The Mexican Official Standard NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003, which establishes the specifications for preserving and sustainably using the mangrove ecosystem, prohibits filling, desiccation, channeling, or any work that modifies the hydrological flow of the mangrove. Its violation, substantiated through technical expert assessment by PROFEPA or the National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change (INECC), is the par excellence evidentiary input in environmental criminal investigations in the region.

Article 60 TER of the LGEEPA, added through a reform published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on February 1, 2007 and confirmed in its terms by subsequent reforms, establishes absolute protection of the mangrove ecosystem and prevents its removal, filling, transplanting, pruning, or any work or activity that affects its functional integrity, excepting only maintenance activities that do not compromise the ecosystem structure. This prohibition has the status of federal law, and its violation directly activates articles 417 and 418 CPF with their aggravated penalties.

Criminal Liability of Legal Entities and Legal Representatives

Article 11 CPF establishes that when any member or representative of a legal entity commits a crime using the means provided for that purpose by such legal entity, so that it is committed in the name of or under the protection of social representation or for its benefit, the judge may impose, in the convicting judgment, accessory legal consequences applicable to the legal entity, including suspension of activities, dissolution, or prohibition from conducting certain operations. This directly exposes the corporate vehicle of development, not only its directors.

The Collegiate Courts of Circuit of the XXVII Circuit (Quintana Roo) have held, in criteria on environmental liability, that the chain of criminal liability extends to the legal representative who signed the construction contracts, the responsible construction manager, and the property owner when there are elements that prove their knowledge of the status of the authorizations. These criteria have advisory value, not binding in the strict sense; nonetheless, they reflect the argumentative line that specialized district attorneys have sustained with increasing consistency in the region. This interpretation significantly expands the scope of imputation.

Practical Implications for Developers and Investors

Criminal risk in coastal developments does not arise solely from the intention to evade regulations. It frequently originates in three recurring scenarios: commencement of work during the validity of review motions filed against the EIA; contracting of expert witnesses who incorrectly delimit the ZOFEMAT or mangrove polygon; and acquisition of properties with permits that were granted with irregularities not detected in transactional due diligence.

In all three cases, the criminal exposure of the purchaser or new developer is real. Article 400 CPF, which regulates concealment through receipt in the title relating to crimes against the administration of justice, has been invoked by some district attorneys when arguing that whoever acquires a development benefiting from work that affected the environment could be covered by this provision. It is important to clarify that this analogical application to the context of acquisitions with unremedied environmental damage is a theory under construction, not consolidated procedural doctrine, and its applicability has been subject to debate among system operators themselves. Its mere possibility, however, requires acquirers to include in their due diligence a review of the environmental history of the property.

A risk that is frequently underestimated is that of precautionary measures that may be imposed from the beginning of an investigation file, before any sentence exists. Once the FGR or the control judge intervenes, they may order the immediate suspension of works, precautionary seizure of assets linked to the project, and restrictions on leaving the country for those charged. For an investor, the paralysis of a development in the midst of construction due to precautionary measures frequently represents a more immediate and severe economic damage than the penalty that might be imposed upon the conclusion of the process. The preventive management of environmental-criminal risk cannot, therefore, be reduced to the litigation phase.

Risk Management: Environmental-Criminal Due Diligence

A due diligence review that does not include examination of PROFEPA administrative files, verification of the current ZOFEMAT concession with SICT, analysis of the EIA resolution and its conditions, and an independent technical appraisal of mangrove and coastal ecosystem, is not sufficient due diligence for an operation on the front line of a beach in Quintana Roo. The difference between an administrative contingency and an active criminal investigation file may depend, with precision, on whether that review was conducted before or after closing. It is worth adding that an emerging trend in federal practice is the extension of investigation toward financiers and funding institutions that provided capital to developments with environmental irregularities: the participation of investment funds, trusts and lenders in projects with a history of unremedialed damage has begun to be subject to scrutiny by the FGR, which broadens the universe of subjects with criminal exposure beyond the direct developer.

Sources and References

Federal Legislation

Federal Criminal Code, articles 11, 287, 400, 414, 415, 416, 417, 418, 421 and 423. Last amendment published in the Official Journal of the Federation (DOF). In effect as of March 15, 2026.
General Law on Ecological Equilibrium and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA), articles 28, 30, 60 TER and 170. Last amendment: DOF 2024. Article 60 TER added by decree published on February 1, 2007.
General Law on National Assets (LGBN), articles 119 through 132. Last amendment: DOF 2022.
Federal Law on Environmental Responsibility, articles 1, 6 and 28. DOF, June 7, 2013. In effect as of March 15, 2026.
General Law on Wildlife, articles 60 BIS and 106. Last amendment: DOF 2023.
Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, article 73, section XXIX-G. Constitutional basis for federal jurisdiction in matters of environmental protection.

Official Mexican Standards

NOM-022-SEMARNAT-2003. Which establishes the specifications for preservation, conservation, sustainable use and restoration of coastal wetlands in mangrove areas. DOF, April 10, 2003; amendment DOF, May 7, 2004.
NOM-059-SEMARNAT-2010. Environmental protection, native species of Mexico flora and wildlife. DOF, December 30, 2010. List update, DOF 2019.

Jurisprudential Criteria

First Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation: criteria not systematized in formal thesis regarding constitutional protection of the environment as a fundamental right pursuant to article 4 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which have extended the due diligence standard to economic operators in areas of high ecological sensitivity. For criteria formally registered in this matter, consult the Federal Judicial Journal at sjf.scjn.gob.mx, filtering by the terms ‘right to a healthy environment’ and ‘precautionary principle.’
Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit (Quintana Roo): criteria not systematized in formal thesis on environmental criminal liability, regarding the extension of attribution to the legal representative, responsible director of construction and property owner in cases of coastal works with irregular EIA or non-conceded ZOFEMAT. These precedents have advisory value and reflect the argumentative line sustained by the specialized prosecution in the region.
Plenary of the SCJN: criteria on the precautionary principle in environmental matters, pursuant to which the absence of scientific certainty cannot be invoked to delay protective measures when there is a risk of serious or irreversible damage to the ecosystem. For formally registered theses, see Federal Judicial Journal, term ‘environmental precautionary principle.‘

Doctrinal Sources

Brañes Ballesteros, Raúl. Manual of Mexican Environmental Law. Second edition. Fondo de Cultura Económica and Fundación Mexicana para la Educación Ambiental, 2000. [Fundamental historical reference; should be read together with legislative developments after 2007.]
González Márquez, José Juan. Liability for Environmental Damage in Mexico: the Reparation Paradigm. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, 2002. [Reference work; following its publication, the Federal Environmental Liability Law of 2013 substantially expanded the reparation regime.]
Carmona Lara, María del Carmen. Rights in Relation to the Environment. UNAM, Institute of Legal Research, 2001. [Foundational reference; constitutional developments of article 4 CPEUM after 2011 have expanded the analytical framework proposed in this work.]
Carmona Lara, María del Carmen and Llorens Báez, Luis (coordinators). Selected Topics in Environmental Law. UNAM, Institute of Legal Research, 2014. Incorporates analysis of the Federal Environmental Liability Law and post-reform liability regimes.
García López, Tania. Liability for Environmental Damage. UNAM, Institute of Legal Research, 2018. Provides updated treatment of civil and criminal environmental liability under the current legal framework, including the interaction between the Federal Environmental Liability Law and the Federal Penal Code.
PROFEPA, Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection. Guide to Technical Criteria for Inspection and Monitoring in Mangrove and Coastal Wetland Zones. Available at www.gob.mx/profepa. Technical reference document used in environmental criminal investigations.
INECC, National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change. National Wetlands Inventory: Distribution and Conservation Status of Mangroves on the Quintana Roo Coast. Available at www.gob.mx/inecc. Technical reference source in environmental expert assessments on mangrove distribution.

Official Sources

Diario Oficial de la Federación (DOF): www.dof.gob.mx. Decrees amending the CPF on environmental matters and the LGEEPA.
PROFEPA, Federal Attorney for Environmental Protection: inspection reports and procedural statistics for the coastal zone of Quintana Roo, available at www.gob.mx/profepa.
Official Gazette of the State of Quintana Roo: complementary state legislation on territorial planning and ecological protection.
SICT, Ministry of Infrastructure, Communications and Transportation: regulatory framework for ZOFEMAT concessions, www.gob.mx/sict.
INECC, National Institute of Ecology and Climate Change: technical studies on mangrove distribution on the Quintana Roo coast, www.gob.mx/inecc.
Federal Judicial Gazette: sjf.scjn.gob.mx. Mandatory consultation source for verification of isolated and jurisprudential theses on environmental matters cited in this article.

About IBG Legal. IBG Legal is a boutique firm specialized in environmental criminal litigation and structuring of coastal development projects, headquartered in Cancún with offices in Mexico City and Querétaro. The Cancún office concentrates the practice of environmental litigation and coastal due diligence in Quintana Roo and the Riviera Maya. The Mexico City office handles coordination with the FGR and federal authorities, as well as investment funds and capital market clients that finance projects in the region. The Querétaro office serves institutional and industrial clients with investment positions in tourism and coastal development assets from central Mexico. For specialized advice on this matter, please contact us.