Law reform generates division among businessmen

“He protection trial It’s going to accelerate, it’s going to be much faster. “That is the kindest part of the reform,” he said. Rogelio Eduardo Leal MotaSecond District Judge in Yucatán, when talking about the reform to the Protection Lawwhich was recently published in the Official Gazette of the Federation.

In interview with Diary to talk about the scope that this reform will have, which has generated various opinions, since the Coparmex He said that it weakens one of the most important historical pillars of the rule of law, the judge indicated that it is a balanced reform.

He is also a teacher at Anáhuac Mayab University, and expert in constitutional law and protection, emphasized that, from his perspective, the reform can be analyzed from several key axes:

Las electronic notificationshe maximum period to issue sentencesthe new rules on the suspension of the claimed act, theaccess to trial in tax caseshe compliance with sentences and, perhaps the most controversial, the transitional on retroactivity.

One of the most obvious changes, and positive according to him, is the digitization of notifications.

“All responsible authorities are required to have a user for our online portal service. (…) Paper, letters, sending letters to remote cities are already abandoned,” explained Leal Mota.

He later added that this will not only speed up processing, but will reduce delays that currently can prolong trials for weeks or months.

Along with this, it is established by law a period of 90 calendar days for judges to issue a sentence once the matter is in a state of resolution. Although this deadline already existed as an internal requirement of the Judiciary Council, it now has legal force.

“Obviously it will give greater certainty,” he assured, although he acknowledged that counting the days as natural instead of business days could work against it, especially during vacation periods.

A change that directly impacts companies is the new criteria on the origin of the amparo trial in tax matters.

With the reform it will not be possible to challenge final tax resolutions until the moment the auction is called. This seeks to prevent the amparo trial from “hindering administrative procedures.”

“This seems like they would say: ‘Hey, this is a setback, this leaves us in a state of defenselessness.’ They really don’t leave you in a state of defenselessness, in my opinion,” the judge clarified.

This logic already exists in other matters, such as commercial matters, where the protection proceeds only after the issuance of the last resolution, he noted.

One of the most discussed points of the reform is the prohibition of granting provisional suspension in cases related to the Financial Intelligence Unit (UIF). Until now, it was common for judges to grant a stay to unblock frozen bank accounts without a court order.

“Now, the law expressly says: ‘Provisional suspension will never be granted’ (…) in the case of attributions or faculties of the UIF, including investigation,” Leal Mota detailed in the interview.

According to him, this means that if a person is affected by mistake, they will not be able to regain access to their resources immediately and will only be able to seek a definitive, but limited, suspension if they prove the legality of their income.

Although this is a measure designed to prevent financial criminals from evading justice, “any of us could be exposed if there was a mistake, or if we were only involved as a third party,” the judge warned.

The new wording puts both the affected person and the judge to the test, who must quickly assess the legality of the income in a very short period of time.

Another relevant change refers to the suspension in cases of informal preventive detention. He recalled that, in Mexico, he has been condemned by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights for automatically applying this figure, which led to judicial criteria that qualified its use.

Now, the law explicitly establishes the effects of the suspension in those cases that occur.

“It is not so that they do not arrest him,” the judge stressed.

“The suspension says: ‘The suspension is granted for the purpose of arrest. And the person is at the disposal of the district judge.’” (To be continued).

Related