June 26, 2026
On June 23, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation confirmed the validity of the requirement to obtain a signed statement to identify the controlling beneficiary or ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) in transactions related to vulnerable activities under the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Transactions with Resources of Illicit Origin (“LFPIORPI” or the “AML Law”).
The matter arose from a verification visit to a company, during which fines were imposed for failures related to the integration of the single client identification file, particularly for not adequately evidencing the request for information regarding beneficial owners.
The Court determined that this requirement, provided in the Rules of General Applicability, does not constitute an additional obligation beyond the law, but rather a valid instrumental measure to evidence compliance with identification, due diligence and document integration obligations.
This resolution confirms the validity of greater documentary requirements for the issuance or commercialization of meal vouchers, prepaid cards or electronic wallets; sale and purchase of vehicles; real estate transactions; leasing of real estate; certain professional services; loans or credit granted by non-financial entities; works of art; acts carried out before notaries public, among others.
In this context, companies that carry out these activities should review that their client and user files include the necessary statements, representations and documentation regarding the ultimate beneficial owner.
This resolution is also relevant for companies that do not directly carry out vulnerable activities. In practice, all companies must know who their beneficial owner is and have sufficient, updated and available corporate documentation to evidence it. Banks, notaries public, suppliers, lessors, distributors, professional service providers and other obligated parties must request this information as part of their obligations and as necessary documentation to provide their services.
The confirmation of this criterion by the Supreme Court reinforces that, when a company does not provide the information or documentation necessary to identify its beneficial owner, it may face delays, additional requests or even the denial of certain services or transactions by third parties obligated to comply with the law.
At Basham, we can assist you in reviewing and strengthening your anti-money laundering compliance processes.