There is a widespread perception among directors and legal representatives of Mexican companies that deserves to be directly challenged: believing that the National Anticorruption System (SNA) is a matter that only concerns public servants. This is an error that can cost dearly. From its constitutional design, the SNA was built to also reach private individuals —both natural persons and legal entities— who participate in, facilitate, or benefit from acts of corruption in their relations with the State. If your company bids, contracts, receives permits, pays taxes, or interacts in any way with a government agency, the SNA is already part of your regulatory environment. Understanding it is not an academic option: it is a strategic necessity.

What is the National Anticorruption System and what is its legal basis in Mexico?

The General Law of the National Anticorruption System is of public order, of general observance throughout the national territory, and its purpose is to establish the bases of coordination between the Federation, the federal entities, the municipalities, and the mayoralties of Mexico City, so that the competent authorities prevent, investigate, and sanction administrative faults and acts of corruption.

The SNA was created after the 2015 constitutional reform to Article 113 of the Political Constitution of the United Mexican States, which established the bases of the inter-institutional coordination system to combat corruption at all levels of government. This reform involved the creation of a legislative package that modified or created seven laws, including the General Law of Administrative Responsibilities (LGRA) —which is the regulatory instrument that most directly affects private companies— and the General Law of the National Anticorruption System itself.

The laws derived from the SNA imply new responsibilities and sanctions for both public officials and civilians and legal entities. This is the key that many companies do not know: the SNA does not only regulate the State from within, but extends its reach to the private sector when it interacts with the public administration.

How is the National Anticorruption System structured and who are its members?

The Coordinating Committee is the body responsible for establishing coordination mechanisms among the members of the National System and will be in charge of the design, promotion, and evaluation of public policies to combat corruption.

The Coordinating Committee is composed of 7 members: the heads of the six national institutions dedicated to accountability and combating corruption, and the head of the Citizen Participation Committee. These institutions are:

• The Superior Audit Office of the Federation (ASF)

• The Specialized Prosecutor's Office for Combating Corruption (FEMCC)

• The Secretariat of Anticorruption and Good Government (SABG) — formerly Secretariat of the Public Function

• The Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA)

• The Judicial Discipline Tribunal (formerly Council of the Federal Judicature)

• The National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information and Personal Data Protection (INAI) — or its current functional equivalent

• The Citizen Participation Committee (CPC)

A relevant and recent fact for companies: the Secretariat of the Public Function was transformed into the Secretariat of Anticorruption and Good Government (SABG) as of November 29, 2024, with the publication in the DOF of the Decree by which various provisions of the Organic Law of the Federal Public Administration are reformed, moving from a corrective approach to a preventive one. This change is not cosmetic: it implies a reorientation of the agency towards the active prevention of corruption, with a transverse reach over all government agencies and their relations with the private sector.

In addition to the Coordinating Committee, the SNA is supported by the Local Anticorruption Systems —one for each federal entity— and the National Digital Platform (PDN), which is the centralized information system where relevant data converges for the prevention and detection of acts of corruption.

What is the National Digital Platform of the SNA and how does it affect companies that contract with the government?

The National Digital Platform (PDN) integrates six information systems: the assets evolution, conflict of interest declaration, and tax declaration submission receipt system; the public servants system involved in public procurement procedures; the national system of sanctioned public servants and private individuals; the SNA information and communication system; the public complaint system for administrative faults and acts of corruption; and the public procurement information system.

For private companies, the most relevant component of the PDN is the National System of Sanctioned Public Servants and Private Individuals. On the National Digital Platform, citizens can access the declarations of officials, the names of those involved in government contracts, and a list of public servants and sanctioned private individuals. Sancions imposed for serious administrative faults that entail disqualifications or impediments to be contracted as service providers or contractors of the public sector are of public knowledge.

This has a direct and concrete consequence for any company that aspires to contract with the government: if its name —or that of its legal representatives— appears in this registry, it will be automatically excluded from bidding and public procurement processes in all orders of government. Prior to the appointment, designation, or hiring of those who intend to enter public service or contract with the government, public entities will consult the national system of sanctioned public servants and private individuals of the National Digital Platform, in order to verify if there are disqualifications.

What are the serious faults that the SNA can attribute to private companies under the LGRA?

The General Law of Administrative Responsibilities is the regulatory instrument that materializes, for legal entities, the consequences of the SNA. Although citizens are not public servants, their conduct can seek undue benefits and cause economic and material damage to the State or society, which is why they are classified as faults linked to corruption, and the LGRA contemplates sanctions for natural and legal persons.

The conducts of private individuals that the LGRA classifies as faults linked to acts of corruption and that can be attributed to private companies include:

• Bribery (Cohecho): Offering, promising, or delivering money, goods, or other benefits to a public servant to perform or refrain from performing an act in the exercise of their functions

• Participation in acts of conflict of interest: Taking advantage of a relationship with a public servant who has a personal interest in the outcome of a procedure

• Misuse of privileged information: Using restricted information obtained from public servants to gain advantages in biddings or other procedures

• Influence trafficking: Managing before a public servant the undue granting of contracts, permits, licenses, or other benefits

• Collusion: Coordinating bids among competing companies to manipulate the outcome of a tender

• Obstruction of investigation powers: Interfering, hiding, or destroying information during an investigation by anticorruption authorities

• Undue hiring of former public servants: Incorporating into the company a public servant who has just left office under conditions that involve a conflict of interest

What are the sanctions for legal entities for serious faults under the SNA?

This is the section that most frequently surprises business directors when they first learn about it. Sanctions for legal entities under the LGRA are not minor administrative matters: they can be economically devastating and operationally terminal.

Sanctions for legal entities (companies, partnerships) include: an economic sanction (fine) of up to twice the benefit obtained; if there was no clear benefit, the fine can be from 1,000 to 1,500,000 times the Unit of Measure and Update (UMA) —an amount that can exceed one billion pesos in extreme cases—; temporary disqualification to participate in public procurement from 3 months to 10 years; and suspension of activities between 3 months and 3 years.

For legal entities, the dissolution of the partnership, disqualification, and economic sanctions are also foreseen; as well as referral to the Public Prosecutor's Office when the facts may constitute crimes.

The sanction of dissolution of the company deserves special attention. Although it is the most serious and the most demanding in terms of proof, its legal possibility means that the SNA can, in extreme cases, order the legal extinction of a private company as a consequence of acts of corruption. This sanction is imposed by the Federal Court of Administrative Justice, not directly by the administrative authority.

Which are the competent authorities to investigate and sanction private companies under the SNA?

The SNA's system of responsibilities distributes powers among different authorities according to the severity of the fault:

Secretariat of Anticorruption and Good Government (SABG)

Formerly SFP, the SABG investigates non-serious administrative faults of public servants and has internal control powers in the federal public administration. As far as private companies are concerned, it acts as the investigating authority in procedures linked to federal procurement. If your company has participated in a questioned award or in a federal public contracting process, the SABG can initiate an investigation against the company as a private individual linked to a serious fault.

Superior Audit Office of the Federation (ASF)

The ASF audits the use of federal public resources. When it detects irregularities in government contracts involving private companies, it can initiate liability procedures and turn the files over to the sanctioning authorities. The procedures derived from ASF observations can lead to sanctions for both the public servants involved and the contracting private companies.

Federal Court of Administrative Justice (TFJA)

It is the sanctioning authority for serious faults. Investigations by the SABG and the ASF conclude in the TFJA, which is the entity that imposes definitive sanctions on private individuals —including legal entities— in cases of serious faults linked to corruption. Its resolutions can be challenged through amparo trial.

Specialized Prosecutor's Office for Combating Corruption (FEMCC)

Acts in the criminal dimension. When the company's behaviors constitute not only an administrative fault but a crime —such as bribery, fraud of the treasury, or illicit use of attributions— the FEMCC initiates the criminal investigation in parallel with the administrative procedure. Both paths are autonomous and can develop simultaneously.

How does an SNA investigation work in practice against a private company?

The administrative responsibility procedure against a legal entity under the LGRA follows these stages:

1. Detection and initial investigation The investigating authority —SABG, ASF, or internal control organ— identifies indications of a possible serious fault linked to a private company, whether through an audit, citizen complaint, cross-referencing on the National Digital Platform, or ex officio.

2. File integration The authority gathers evidence: contracts, invoices, asset declarations of involved public servants, PDN data, communications, and any other element that links the company to the act of corruption.

3. Report of alleged responsibility If the indications are sufficient, the investigating authority drafts a report that it sends to the Federal Court of Administrative Justice to initiate the sanctioning procedure.

4. Notification to the company and right to a hearing The TFJA notifies the company about the start of the procedure and grants it the right to offer evidence and present arguments in its defense. This is the critical moment where specialized legal counsel is decisive.

5. Resolution of the TFJA The Court issues its resolution, which can be an acquittal or a conviction. If it is a conviction, it imposes the corresponding sanctions according to articles 81 and 82 of the LGRA.

6. Appeal The company can challenge a conviction through a direct amparo trial before Collegiate Circuit Courts, arguing violations of due process or the merits of the case.

What concrete obligations does the SNA generate for companies that contract with the government?

Beyond the sanctioning regime, the SNA generates preventive compliance obligations that companies must incorporate into their ordinary operations. The most relevant ones are:

Verification of the registry of sanctioned parties before participating in tenders Before submitting a proposal in any public procurement process, the company must verify that neither it nor its legal representatives, partners, or relevant shareholders appear in the National System of Sanctioned Public Servants and Private Individuals of the PDN. Participating in a bid while disqualified worsens the legal situation of the company.

Identification of the beneficial owner The Coordinating Committee of the National Anticorruption System has issued agreements for the identification and transparency of the beneficial owner in Mexico as a tool to combat corruption. This means that companies that contract with the government must be able to identify and make transparent who is the final economic beneficiary of the operation, which directly impacts corporate structures designed for opacity.

Due diligence in the value chain If your company subcontracts others for the execution of a government contract, liability can extend to the conduct of those companies. The correct execution of public contracts implies designing internal mechanisms for verifying business partners in the chain.

Corporate integrity programs Although they are not mandatory in general terms for private companies, the existence of an integrity program —which includes a code of ethics, internal reporting mechanisms, anticorruption training, and internal controls— is a mitigating factor recognized by the LGRA in determining sanctions. For companies that regularly contract with the government, implementing these policies is an indispensable risk management measure.

How can private companies reduce their risk exposure under the SNA?

Anticorruption compliance has ceased to be an exclusive practice of large international corporations. In the context of the SNA, any company that has or aspires to have commercial relationships with the Mexican government needs to incorporate structural prevention measures:

Corruption risk mapping Identify at what points in the company's operations there is contact with public servants: permits, inspections, biddings, tax procedures, contracts. Each of those contact points is a potential risk node.

Clear policies on gifts, entertainment, and hospitality Define internally what type of accommodations to public officials are allowed, in what amounts, and under what conditions. What might be an ordinary commercial practice in a private context can constitute bribery in the context of the SNA.

Internal whistleblower channel Set up a confidential mechanism for employees, executives, and partners to report potentially corrupt behavior within the organization. Detecting the problem internally is always preferable to having the authority detect it.

Preventive legal advice in public procurement Every bidding process must be reviewed by a lawyer specializing in government contracts who identifies regulatory risks, verifies compliance with the rules, and guarantees that the company's actions during the process do not expose its representatives or the company itself to a subsequent investigation.

Periodic internal audits Regularly review operations linked to the public sector: active contracts, payments received, relations with officials, documentation of relevant decisions. Document traceability is the first line of defense against an investigation.

What every company should know before its next interaction with the Mexican public sector

The National Anticorruption System is not a system thought of solely to punish corrupt officials. It is an institutional architecture that directly reaches the private sector every time it comes into contact with the resources and processes of the State. Understanding it, integrating it into corporate risk management, and acting with a solid compliance framework is the most effective way to operate in the Mexican government market with legal certainty.

The sanctions contemplated in the LGRA for legal entities —million-dollar fines, disqualification of contract, suspension of activities, and in the most extreme case the dissolution of the company— are not theoretical threats: they are real consequences of a system that has been consolidating its investigative and sanctioning capacity for years. Companies that understand it as a regulatory environment requiring active management, and not as an abstract risk that 'will not reach them,' will have a decisive competitive advantage over those operating without that awareness.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can the SNA sanction a private company even if it has not committed a criminal offense?

Yes. The SNA's liability system operates in two autonomous ways: administrative and criminal. Sanctions for legal entities include fines, temporary disqualification to participate in acquisitions, leases, services, or public works, and indemnification for the damages and losses caused. All of these are administrative sanctions that do not require a prior criminal conviction. The company can be administratively sanctioned by the TFJA even if the Prosecutor's Office has not exercised criminal action, or even if the criminal action resulted in dismissal.

What happens if an employee of the company commits an act of corruption without the knowledge of the executives?

Companies or civil organizations will be sanctioned for the acts of corruption committed by the natural persons who represent them. This implies that the liability of the legal entity can be derived from the behaviors of its representatives, directors, and employees with decision-making power. The existence of a documented corporate integrity program, demonstrating that the company took reasonable measures to prevent acts of corruption, is the most relevant mitigating argument in these types of cases.

How long can an administrative responsibility procedure before the TFJA last?

Procedures before the Federal Court of Administrative Justice in terms of administrative responsibilities can extend between one and several years, depending on the complexity of the case, the volume of evidence, and the procedural appeals and incidents that are filed. The statute of limitations for the sanctioning powers in terms of serious faults is seven years counted from the day the conduct was committed or, if it was continuous, from the day it ceased. For companies, this means that events that occurred in previous years can be subject to investigation and sanction much later.

How can a company verify if it is disqualified or sanctioned in the SNA?

Through the National Digital Platform of the SNA, available on the portal of the Executive Secretariat of the National Anticorruption System (SESNA). The National System of Sanctioned Public Servants and Private Individuals is of public consultation and allows verifying if a company or its legal representatives have active sanctions for serious administrative faults. This verification must be carried out routinely before participating in any public procurement process.

Does the SNA apply only at a federal level or also in states and municipalities?

The SNA reaches all levels of government. The Report on the Situation of Local Anticorruption Systems highlights the approval of 31 State Anticorruption Policies and 21 Implementation Programs, with the collaboration of 887 public entities in the country. Each federal entity has its own Local Anticorruption System, with its own investigating and sanctioning authorities. A company that contracts with a state or municipal government is subject to the rules of that entity's local system, articulated with the federal system.

What role does the Citizen Participation Committee of the SNA play and is it relevant for companies?

The Citizen Participation Committee (CPC) is the organ of the SNA integrated by independent citizens whose function is to voice society's thoughts in the design and evaluation of anticorruption policies. For companies, its practical relevance lies in the fact that the CPC can receive complaints about acts of corruption, promote investigations before the competent authorities, and give public visibility to specific cases. In sectors with high media exposure, a complaint before the CPC can have significant reputational effects on a company, even before any formal procedure concludes.

Does a corporate integrity program really reduce sanctions under the LGRA?

Yes, formally and recognized by the law. The LGRA establishes that the existence of internal prevention mechanisms of acts of corruption in the company is a factor that the sanctioning authority must consider when graduating the sanction. Although its presence does not exempt from liability if the act was committed, it can represent the difference between a maximum sanction and a reduced sanction. For companies participating regularly in public procurement, implementing and documenting an integrity program is not an expense: it is an investment with a direct return in reducing sanctioning risk.