On February 21, 2025, the Federal Judicial Weekly published a criterion on the criminal liability of legal entities in Mexico. The thesis, with digital registration number 2029987, derived from the amparo in review 318/2023, of the Second Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the State of Mexico, is titled: 'Criminal liability of legal entities. Requirements for the respective motivation, in accordance with article 11 bis of the Penal Code of the State of Mexico.'
On February 21, 2025, the Federal Judicial Weekly published a criterion on the criminal liability of legal entities in Mexico. The thesis, with digital registration number 2029987, derived from the amparo in review 318/2023, of the Second Collegiate Court in Criminal Matters in the State of Mexico, is titled: 'Criminal liability of legal entities. Requirements for the respective motivation, in accordance with article 11 bis of the Penal Code of the State of Mexico.'
The facts refer to a dispossession that occurred in July 2017, in Valle de Bravo, State of Mexico. The affected party, Mr. Rodolfo, claimed to have acquired a plot of land on the outskirts of Avándaro in 1996 and to have used it regularly since that date, even renting it out between 2016 and 2017. Mr. Rodolfo narrated that upon returning to his property one day in July 2023, he observed that approximately sixty people were building a wall and had removed all his belongings from inside his property after breaking the access chain.
Apparently, a paper company claimed to own the land and have authorization from the city council to carry out fencing and maintenance work. Mr. Rodolfo filed a complaint with the Prosecutor's Office, and in 2023, the company was linked to the process through its legal representative for its probable responsibility in the crime of dispossession, in the modality of occupying one's own property to the detriment of a third party with legitimate possession.
Amparo against the linkage to the process: The company filed an amparo before the Fifth District Court of the State of Mexico, which was granted due to deficiencies in the observance of the principle of orality. The court argued that the Prosecutor's Office had read its arguments and evidence during the hearing, instead of presenting them verbally. The effects of the judgment consisted of holding a new initial hearing, respecting the principle of orality.
Review by the TCC: Nevertheless, the same company filed a review and the Collegiate Court evaluated aspects related to the way of associating an intentional crime with a legal entity. The Collegiate Court identified four key factors that must be considered to meet the requirement of due motivation when analyzing criminal acts committed by companies:
1. The nature of the crime itself and its compatibility with the functions and operation of the company.
2. The fact that the actions of any administrator or representative are not automatically attributable to the company in criminal matters.
3. The need for the material author's intent to encompass that advantage, benefit, or acting on behalf of the company as provided by criminal law.
4. Verify the specific quality of those who act on behalf or administration of the company to link their acts with the company.
Key Aspects: Taking into account the four factors described above, in the opinion of the Collegiate Court, the Control Judge had not correctly motivated the company's responsibility in the dispossession. The Court resolved that there was no argument regarding (i) how the people who carried out the dispossession did so for the benefit, or on behalf of a company, (ii) how those people were linked to the company, (iii) that the authors were aware that their actions were for the benefit or advantage of the company, and (iv) nor that they did so in compliance with the functions entrusted to them by the company. Therefore, the Court granted the amparo for the judge to remedy these argumentative deficiencies in a new initial hearing.
Conclusion: This criterion is fundamental to understanding how criminal liability is applied to legal entities in Mexico and provides assistance in addressing future cases. It is relevant to highlight that this criterion focuses exclusively on the Penal Code of the State of Mexico and does not cover the requirements of due organizational control established by the National Code of Criminal Procedure. Unfortunately, the Court also does not explain the omission of studying those requirements. We infer that the court's methodology requires first meeting those four factors, and only then verifying the existence of sufficient organizational controls.
