On the one hand, the Public Ministry remains the only body competent to investigate, gather evidence, and issue measures of restraint aimed at the prosecution of a crime. The effectiveness of a sentence and the imposition of penalties depend on this evidence. Without this link, no criminal case can be sustained. But there is a limit that cannot be ignored: all actions taken by the three branches of power to achieve this objective must be framed within the constitutional framework. The errors made by legislators, administrative authorities, prosecutors, and judges in this regard are not merely technical; they frustrate, to the detriment of society, the effort that involves dedicating countless human and material resources to achieving peace. From this perspective, the relevance of the Decree on amendments to the Regulation of the Federal Law for the Prevention and Identification of Operations with Illicitly Derived Resources, published in the Official Gazette of the Federation last week, must be analyzed once again. The amendments to the Regulation aim to harmonize the reforms approved in July of last year, both to the law itself and to the Federal Criminal Code. The Regulation gives operational effect to the reform and facilitates the intervention that the Financial Intelligence Unit must now have in the implementation of administrative procedures and in institutional coordination with the Attorney General's Office, in response to any complaint regarding crimes related to money laundering. The Regulation sets out operational rules that banks and other institutions holding sensitive information must observe, with the aim of facilitating the early detection of illicit operations. The reform will allow for closer coordination in fulfilling the ultimate goal: more active oversight of monetary operations in which criminal bands are habitually involved. However, the underlying problem persists, and it does not come from the Regulation, but from the law itself and from the conception of the activities carried out by the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit in this area. Article 21 of the Constitution grants exclusive powers to the Public Ministry to conduct the investigation of crimes. The issue of constitutionality faced by the anti-money laundering system designed by the legislator in a supposed parallel plane to international models has already been raised before the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation. However, no matter how many adjustments may be introduced through administrative or regulatory norms, the problem persists. Even with the rethinking of the criminal type contained in Article 400 Bis of the Federal Criminal Code, no fundamental solution is apparent. The limit imposed by the Constitution in establishing the Public Ministry as the only body responsible for the prosecution of crimes is still not recognized, and insistence remains on granting an administrative authority powers that, by their effects, belong to the penal sphere. Even if the debate on the necessary judicial review of account blocking is overcome, the problem does not end there. In fact, it is a patrimonial harm with consequences typical of a criminal process, but without the guarantees that accompany it. The problem is not minor. The absence of a clear timeframe for this measure persists. And above all, the lack of subordination of the actions of the Financial Intelligence Unit to the determinations of the Public Ministry persists. In a constitutional state of law, no harm to property for purposes linked to a criminal investigation can be sustained without the constitutionally competent authority—the Public Ministry—leading, ordering, and controlling that intervention. Everything else is not institutional coordination, but a rupture of the constitutional design. However, in parallel, the Secretariat of Finance and Public Credit can investigate, generate indispensable financial intelligence information for a criminal case, and also issue measures to block accounts, thereby preventing the use of funds and freezing them. This blocking, although formally administrative, produces effects equivalent to a restraining measure. In practice, it is almost imperceptible. The effect that has been produced is particularly delicate for legal certainty. Under no concept can this representative of the interests of society be subordinate to the mandate of an administrative authority that, in addition, is part of the same state apparatus in charge of collecting taxes, the same one to which the inspection of the taxpayer's bank accounts is now entrusted. The boundary imposed by the Constitution between administrative authorities in charge of producing financial intelligence and those on which the penal action depends is extremely tenuous. Week after week, news continues to be dominated by the grave and sustained growth of criminality in the country. This week was marked by the painful topic of searching mothers and the makeup of the number of disappeared persons in Mexico. The coming one will probably revolve around the fall of drug lords or the seizure of drugs. Regardless of the successes—and of the many failures—with which investigative and prosecutorial activities are carried out in Mexico, all experts agree on one point: the securing of money is an indispensable means to prevent criminal activities from continuing their course. Access to bank and financial information by the authorities in charge of investigating crimes, as well as the discovery of evidence that allows tracing the traceability of money, constitute a determining factor in demonstrating the link between resources and illicit conduct.
