SAT Sanctions for Non-Compliance with LFPIORPI: Exposure and Defense

Sanctioning Framework and Defense Strategy Before the SAT in LFPIORPI Matters

The Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin (LFPIORPI), published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on October 17, 2012, and whose most recent relevant amendment dates to 2021, establishes a regime of obligations for so-called “obligated subjects”: among them, real estate developers, notaries, agents, and any person who intervenes in purchase and sale operations, leasing, or establishment of real rights over real property. Non-compliance exposes obligated subjects to administrative sanctions whose severity is often underestimated until the sanctioning procedure is already underway.

Types of Applicable Sanctions

The SAT, in exercise of its supervisory powers over obligated subjects of the non-financial sector, applies sanctions provided for in Chapter IV of the LFPIORPI, specifically in articles 52 through 56. It is appropriate to clarify that the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF) operates under the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP) in accordance with article 6 of the LFPIORPI, and its function is financial intelligence and analysis with a coordinating role distinct from the direct imposition of administrative sanctions on obligated subjects of the non-financial sector; this distinction is relevant to correctly understand the chain of regulatory responsibility. The sanctioning scheme distinguishes three principal categories:

• Warning: Formal sanction applicable to minor infractions, in accordance with article 52, section I. It does not imply direct economic consequence, but constitutes an aggravating precedent in subsequent proceedings.
• Economic fine: Article 53 establishes ranges ranging between 200 and 10,000 days of the general minimum wage in force in the Federal District (now Mexico City), depending on the severity of the infraction. Practical note for monetary exposure calculation: given that article 53 LFPIORPI refers to “days of general minimum wage in force,” professionals must analyze the debate on the substitution by the Unit of Measurement and Updating (UMA), derived from the constitutional reform of 2016 and determinations by INEGI; the distinction between UMA and minimum wage materially impacts the actual amount of the fine, and its resolution requires case-by-case assessment in accordance with applicable jurisprudence at the time of the infraction. For non-compliance regarding the filing of notices (article 17 LFPIORPI), the threshold may be raised when the amount of the omitted operation exceeds the equivalent of 3,210 UDIS. This threshold corresponds to the notice threshold under article 17 LFPIORPI for real estate operations: at the UDI value in force at the end of 2024, it is approximately equivalent to $24,600 Mexican pesos, a figure distinct and significantly lower than the threshold applicable to cash operations under article 32 LFPIORPI, so any developer or fund that intervenes in real property transactions must independently verify whether its operations exceed this parameter based on the UDI value published by the Bank of Mexico on the date of the concrete operation.
• Temporary disqualification: In cases of recidivism or serious impairment to the prevention system, article 55 permits suspension of the offender from its activity as an obligated subject, with severe operational consequences for active companies.

The most frequent infractions in the real estate sector include: omission or untimely filing of notices in the SAT-LFPIORPI Portal; absence of internal policies for customer identification (KYC); lack of a compliance officer; and cash operations exceeding the thresholds of article 32 without the corresponding notice.

Sanction Imposition Process

The sanctioning procedure is governed by articles 47 through 51 of the LFPIORPI in conjunction with the Federal Tax Code (CFF), specifically its articles 42, 46-A, and 53-B, applicable suppletively. The SAT initiates through a verification visit or information request. Once the presumed infraction is established, a notice of probable responsibility is issued that grants the obligated subject a period of ten business days to file arguments and offer evidence.

The final resolution must be issued within the timeframes provided in the LFPIORPI itself. Regarding the statute of limitations for the authority’s power to impose sanctions under this legal framework, the applicable rule is article 57 of the LFPIORPI, which establishes a five-year period counted from when the infraction was committed or from when the authority became aware of it. Article 67 of the CFF, which regulates the statute of limitations for the authority’s power to determine tax contributions (tax credits), is only applicable supplementarily and with limited scope to procedural matters not regulated by the LFPIORPI, and therefore does not constitute the primary basis for the statute of limitations in this proceeding. The notification of the final resolution activates the period to challenge it, either through a motion for reconsideration before the SAT itself (article 116 CFF) or through a nullity action before the Federal Administrative Justice Tribunal (TFJA), in accordance with article 3 of the Federal Law of Administrative Contentious Procedure (LFPCA) and article 14 of the Organic Law of the TFJA, which constitute the correct jurisdictional basis for the admissibility of the sanctioning resolution as an impugnable act.

Defense Strategy: Critical Elements

An effective defense in LFPIORPI matters requires technical intervention from the moment the SAT issues the first request. The most solid arguments include:

1. Statute of limitations and expiration of powers: Article 57 of the LFPIORPI establishes that the SAT’s powers to impose sanctions under that legal framework expire after five years, counted from the commission of the infraction or from when the authority became aware of it. The precision of the dies a quo is determinative in operations whose execution date is disputed. Article 67 of the CFF may be invoked supplementarily only regarding the expiration of powers to determine tax contributions, not as an autonomous basis for sanctioning statute of limitations under the LFPIORPI.
2. Improper motivation and legal basis: The courts of the Federal Judiciary have held in various rulings (.scjn.gob.mx through search by administrative subject matter and the term “enhanced motivation in administrative sanctions”) that every sanctioning resolution must individualize the infracting conduct with precision, identify the specific violated article, and quantify the sanction based on objective criteria. The absence of any of these elements constitutes a violation of article 16 of the Constitution and generates outright nullity before the TFJA.
3. Proportionality of the sanction: The First Chamber of the SCJN has held in a reiterated criterion in various rulings, available through search in the Federal Judicial Gazette under the terms “proportionality, administrative sanctions, graduation,” that the principle of proportionality in administrative sanction matters requires the authority to weigh the economic capacity of the violator, intentionality, damage caused, and recidivism before fixing the quantum. A resolution that applies the maximum of the range without motivating such graduation is susceptible to reduction via partial nullity.
4. Absence of notification to the compliance officer: The Regulations of the LFPIORPI (article 35) and the Rules of General Application issued by the SAT require that requests be formally directed to the designated compliance officer. Deficient notification may affect the validity of the entire proceeding.
5. Substitute or delayed compliance: The submission of the omitted notice prior to the final resolution may constitute a formal mitigating factor which, if argued correctly, reduces the applicable fine in accordance with article 53, section II, at the end.

Suspension of the Impugned Act: Precautionary Measure in the Defense Proceeding

An element frequently omitted from defensive strategy is the possibility of obtaining suspension of the execution of the sanction while the challenge is resolved. This precautionary measure is especially critical when the imposed sanction is the temporary disqualification provided for in article 55 LFPIORPI, whose immediate execution may cause irreversible operational damage to the obligated subject company. During the motion for reconsideration, suspension is governed by article 144 of the CFF. In the nullity action before the TFJA, articles 24 through 28 of the LFPCA regulate the granting of provisional and definitive suspension of the impugned act. The argument to obtain suspension of a disqualification must emphasize: the appearance of the right to win in accordance with the grievances raised; the periculum in mora derived from the impossibility of continuing operations as an obligated subject during the trial; and the absence of harm to the social interest or public order, given that the obligated subject may commit to maintaining its compliance program in effect during the proceeding. Professionals should request this measure simultaneously with the submission of the motion or lawsuit, as the deadlines for requesting it are brief and its omission may result in irreversible execution of the sanction before there is a final resolution on the merits.

Practical Implications for Obligated Subjects in the Real Estate Sector

Companies with operations in Quintana Roo and the Riviera Maya face amplified exposure due to the volume and value of transactions in the region. A transaction for the purchase and sale of a high-end tourism development can trigger multiple simultaneous notice obligations. The absence of a documented compliance program not only increases the probability of sanction, but eliminates the possibility of demonstrating good faith in the proceedings.

From the perspective of contentious defense, the Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit with headquarters in Cancún have ruled on challenges to administrative sanctions derived from the LFPIORPI, maintaining in various rulings (which can be consulted through the Semanario Judicial de la Federación at sjf.scjn.gob.mx by searching by circuit and subject matter) criteria that require the authority to demonstrate with precision the causal nexus between the omissive conduct and the money laundering risk that the norm seeks to prevent, thereby conditioning the validity of the resolution to strict compliance with reinforced justification requirements.

Autonomous Penal Exposure: The Threshold Between Administrative Infraction and Criminal Liability

An aspect that no developer, private capital fund or investor with operations in the real estate sector can ignore is that a violation of the LFPIORPI generates not exclusively administrative liability. When the omissive conduct of the obligated subject evidences knowledge or facilitation of operations with illicitly sourced funds, the UIF, in the exercise of its financial intelligence attributions under Article 6 of the LFPIORPI, may prepare intelligence reports and forward them to the General Prosecutor’s Office (FGR), converting what began as an administrative proceeding before the SAT into a criminal investigation. The applicable criminal statutes are Articles 400 Bis and 400 Bis-1 of the Federal Criminal Code, which classify operations with illicitly sourced funds (money laundering) and association for such purpose, respectively, with sentences of deprivation of liberty that may reach sixteen years. The distinction between technical non-compliance and participation in money laundering schemes is not always evident from the administrative file, so the defense strategy before the SAT must be designed from the outset with full awareness of this bifurcation of responsibilities. A robust and documented compliance program is the principal differentiating element between the obligated subject who incurred a procedural error and one that the authority can link to conduct with criminal intent.

Operative Conclusion

Defense before the SAT in LFPIORPI matters does not begin in the reconsideration appeal. It begins at the first requirement. Deadlines are short, the burden of proof rests initially with the obligated subject, and a deficient response at the stage of manifestations can close arguments that would later be determinative in contentious proceedings. The combination of a robust compliance program with a preventive litigation strategy is the only response proportionate to the current regulatory and penal risk.

IBG Legal has developed an integrated practice of compliance and contentious litigation in LFPIORPI matters that combines the design and diagnosis of AML programs with active representation in proceedings before the SAT, the TFJA and the Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit in Cancún. Our client base includes high-end tourism developers, private capital funds with portfolios in the Riviera Maya and corporate groups with multiple obligated subjects in the real estate sector. If your company has not yet submitted your LFPIORPI compliance program to an independent technical review, or if you have already received a requirement from the SAT, we invite you to request a specific diagnostic consultation on your current regulatory exposure: an early assessment is always less costly than a reactive defense.

Sources and References

Legislation

• Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin (LFPIORPI), DOF October 17, 2012; last reform published in the DOF in 2021. Articles 6, 17, 32, 47 to 57.
• Regulations of the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Resources of Illicit Origin, DOF August 16, 2013. Article 35.
• Federal Tax Code (CFF), DOF December 31, 1981; last reform 2025. Articles 42, 46-A, 53-B, 67 (applicable supplementarily in matters of tax credits, not as primary basis for sanctioning expiration under LFPIORPI), 116, 144.
• Federal Law of Administrative Contentious Procedure (LFPCA), DOF December 1, 2005; last reform 2023. Articles 3, 24 to 28.
• Organic Law of the Federal Court of Administrative Justice (LOTFJA), DOF July 18, 2016; last applicable reform. Article 14 (jurisdictional basis for action of nullity against sanctioning resolutions).
• Political Constitution of the United Mexican States. Article 16 (principles of legality, motivation and substantiation in acts of authority); 2016 reform on the Unit of Measurement and Update (UMA).
• Federal Criminal Code. Articles 400 Bis and 400 Bis-1 (operations with resources of illicit origin).
• General Rules referred to in the LFPIORPI, issued by the SAT; current version published in the DOF, with updates subsequent to 2021.

Case Law and Judicial Criteria

• First Chamber of the SCJN: criterion sustained in various rulings on the matter of proportionality of administrative sanctions, to the effect that the sanctioning authority must weigh the economic capacity of the violator, intentionality, damage caused and recidivism when grading the sanction within the legal range, under penalty of nullity for lack of enhanced motivation. To locate specific registered theses, search is recommended in the Federal Judicial Weekly (sjf.scjn.gob.mx) under the headings: “proportionality, administrative sanctions, graduation, motivation.”
• Collegiate Courts of the XXVII Circuit (Cancún, Quintana Roo): criterion sustained in various rulings on the matter of enhanced motivation in administrative sanctioning resolutions, requiring the substantiation of the causal nexus between the omissive conduct of the obligated subject and the regulatory risk that the rule intends to prevent. To locate rulings and registered theses, search is recommended in sjf.scjn.gob.mx filtering by XXVII circuit and administrative subject matter.
• Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA), Plenary and Regional Chambers: criteria on absolute nullity due to deficient individualization of the violation in resolutions issued in proceedings arising from the LFPIORPI. Theses and precedents consultable in the official TFJA portal (www.tfja.gob.mx).

Doctrine

• Carbonell, Miguel and Ochoa Reza, Enrique. What is the Rule of Law? UNAM, Mexico, 2002. (Principles of legality and proportionality in administrative sanctioning law; reference of general constitutional context.)
• Delgadillo Gutiérrez, Luis Humberto. Principles of Tax Law. 5th edition. Limusa, Mexico, 2004. (Expiration and prescription of SAT sanctioning powers; applicable supplementarily to LFPIORPI proceedings.)
• Mexican Institute of Public Accountants (IMCP). Guide for Compliance with the LFPIORPI by Obligated Subjects of the Non-Financial Sector. IMCP, Mexico. (For specialized and updated bibliography on obligations of obligated subjects under the LFPIORPI, consultation is likewise recommended of the institutional publications of the IMCP, INDETEC and compliance manuals endorsed by the SHCP, which reflect with greater precision the current regulatory practice.)

Official Sources

• Official Gazette of the Federation (DOF): www.dof.gob.mx
• SAT Portal, LFPIORPI section and notice filing: www.sat.gob.mx
• Federal Court of Administrative Justice, jurisprudence and theses: www.tfja.gob.mx
• Federal Judicial Weekly, SCJN: sjf.scjn.gob.mx
• National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI), current UMA values: www.inegi.org.mx
• Bank of Mexico, current UDI values: www.banxico.org.mx