All 359 Mexican standards,
organised by theme

Article 1 of the Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos prohibits all games of chance and games with wagers (juegos con apuestas) on Mexican territory, subject only to the exceptions the law itself authorises. The general prohibition is the constitutional anchor on which every Mexican gambling permit ultimately rests.

Article 2 lists the only activities lawfully exempt from the general prohibition: games of pure skill (ajedrez, dominó, billar and similar), athletic events with wagers, and sorteos (draws) expressly permitted by the Secretaría de Gobernación. Casino games and slot machines are not in the article 2 list — their permissibility derives entirely from interpretation of arts. 3 and 4 by SEGOB through the Reglamento.

Article 3 vests the Secretaría de Gobernación with exclusive authority to regulate, authorise, control and supervise all games with wagers and draws within the federal territory. No state or municipal authority may issue parallel permits for activities reserved to the federal sphere.

Article 4 confirms that gambling and draw permits are granted, modified and revoked by the Federal Executive acting through SEGOB. Permits are non-transferable without express SEGOB authorisation and may be revoked on the grounds listed in the Reglamento.

The Reglamento Interior de la Secretaría de Gobernación designates the Dirección General de Juegos y Sorteos as the operational area responsible for permit administration, technical supervision, inspections and sanction proceedings. The DGJS is the day-to-day counterparty for every permit holder.

Article 20 of the Reglamento defines the principal permit classes: cross-betting (apuestas remotas / sportsbook), number-draw centres (centros de apuestas y sorteo de números), traditional sorteos (de números, de símbolos, instantáneos, de propaganda comercial and transmitidos por medios de comunicación masiva). Each class carries its own technical, financial and operational obligations.

Article 22 sets the eligibility conditions for a permit holder: Mexican legal personality, corporate purpose covering the requested activity, evidence of technical and economic capacity, and absence of disqualifying criminal antecedents in the controllers. SEGOB exercises wide discretion in assessing the file.

Article 5 confers on the Secretaría de Gobernación the function of vigilance, inspection and supervision over every game with wagers and every authorised draw, including the appointment of inspectors and interventors with full access to permitted establishments.

Article 7 directs that every permit issued under the LFJS must set out the conditions to which the holder is subject, including the place, days and hours of operation, the participaciones owed to the federation and any other restrictions SEGOB considers necessary in the public interest.

Article 12 sets out the administrative sanctions for breach of the LFJS and its Reglamento: monetary fines calibrated to the gravity of the conduct, temporary closure of the establishment, and revocation of the permit. The sanction ladder is independent of any criminal liability under the Código Penal Federal.

Article 15 lists the grounds for revocation of a permit: serious or repeated breach of the LFJS or Reglamento, non-payment of the federal participación, transfer of the permit without SEGOB authorisation, and conduct that affects public order or morality.

Each permit lists the precise physical sites at which permitted activities may be conducted. Activities at any other site, even by the same permit holder, are unauthorised and may trigger revocation.

Article 30 prohibits access by minors to authorised establishments and obliges the permit holder to verify age and identity at entry. The minimum age for any wagering activity is 18.

Permit holders must keep individualised books and records of every player account, including identification, transactions, balances and wagering history, and produce them to SEGOB and the SAT on request.

Article 65 obliges permit holders to use only games whose software, hardware and random-number generators have been certified to standards accepted by the DGJS. Certification must precede any commercial launch.

Permit holders must adopt measures to prevent cheating, collusion, money-laundering and any conduct affecting game integrity, and must report incidents to the DGJS.

Article 21 sets the criteria SEGOB applies when assessing a permit application: legality of the corporate vehicle, demonstrated technical and economic capacity, suitability of the proposed sites, and public interest in the proposed activity. SEGOB's resolution is discretionary but must be motivated.

Article 23 requires permit applicants to disclose the identity of every controlling shareholder, director, statutory examiner and ultimate beneficial owner, supported by documentary evidence of legal capacity and absence of disqualifying antecedents.

Article 28 expands the LFJS art. 15 revocation grounds: serious breach of permit conditions, sustained non-compliance with technical certification, non-payment of the federal participación, transfer without authorisation, and any conduct that compromises the integrity of permitted activities.

Article 32 sets out the procedure for authorising each site at which a permit holder may operate: prior request to SEGOB, evidence of compliance with use-of-land and municipal rules, security and surveillance plan, and inspection of the site before commercial opening.

Article 35 prohibits authorisation of establishments within minimum distances of schools, hospitals and religious sites, and requires consideration of the urban context. SEGOB may refuse authorisation on location grounds even where every other condition is met.

Article 40 requires every authorised establishment to maintain a physical security and surveillance plan covering access control, CCTV, cash-handling, panic procedures and coordination with public-security authorities. The plan is reviewed at each inspection.

Article 45 requires permit holders to file monthly reports to the DGJS covering wagering volumes, payout ratios, federal participación calculations, technical incidents and any sanction events. The reports are the principal supervisory input between inspections.

Article 50 fixes the minimum retention period for operating books, player-account records and supporting documentation, aligned with tax and AML retention obligations. Records may not be destroyed before the retention period elapses, even if commercial relations have ended.

Article 60 requires DGJS pre-launch approval of every game offered by a permit holder, supported by technical documentation, mathematical model, RTP, paytables and certification by an accepted laboratory. Commercial launch before approval is itself a sanctionable breach.

Article 67 confines RNG and game-software certification to laboratories formally accepted by the DGJS. The list of accepted laboratories is published and updated by SEGOB; certificates from non-accepted laboratories are not recognised.

Article 70 requires every piece of gaming equipment to be registered with the DGJS, identified by serial number, software version and location, with traceable movement records between sites and warehouses.

Article 72 prohibits permit-holder staff and any person acting on their behalf from colluding with players, manipulating equipment or otherwise interfering with the integrity of permitted games. Detection triggers internal sanction and DGJS referral.

Article 75 requires the permit holder to investigate every reported integrity incident, document findings in a written record and report material incidents to the DGJS within the deadline fixed in the inspection rules.

Article 80 prohibits permit-holder staff, directors and family members of a defined degree from wagering at the establishment in which they work. The prohibition extends to remote channels operated by the same permit holder.

Article 81 requires a pre-opening inspection of every newly authorised establishment, covering site layout, equipment installation, security plan and books-and-records system. The DGJS may refuse to permit commercial opening until findings are remediated.

Article 88 requires that electronic operating records be kept in a form that preserves integrity, time-stamping and tamper-evidence. Records altered after the fact without an audit trail are inadmissible at inspection and may themselves trigger sanction.

Article 90 requires permit holders operating accounts to segregate player-balance funds from operating funds, holding them in accounts identifiable as fiduciary in nature, so that player balances are recoverable in any insolvency scenario.

Article 92 requires that the books, records and electronic data necessary for SEGOB supervision be accessible from Mexican territory, whether hosted locally or mirrored from foreign infrastructure. Offshore-only storage without a Mexican access point is non-compliant.

Article 5 prohibits access to or permanence in the wagering areas by minors (except when accompanying an adult to a live show, and never to place bets), persons under the influence of psychotropic or prohibited substances or alcohol, armed persons, uniformed police or military on duty (unless on official business), persons disturbing order, persons caught cheating and persons in breach of the internal rules approved by SEGOB.

Article 10 requires all wagering and draw operations regulated by the Reglamento to be conducted in national currency (Mexican pesos).

Article 29 imposes the operational obligations on permit holders for racetracks, jai alai, remote betting centres and number-and-symbol draw halls: quarterly and annual audited financial statements, annual insurance and civil-liability policy filings, denunciation of suspected organised-crime or money-laundering activity, participant-security measures, art. 5 access screening, monthly revenue and participations reports, notification of share transfers and beneficial-ownership changes, capital maintenance, prohibition on tax-haven shareholders, prohibition on opaque trust holdings, adoption of BMV best-practice corporate governance, a 25% independent-director floor, an ongoing prize-payment bond covering 60 operating days and annual labour-relations updates.

Article 36 (reformed 23 October 2013 and 16 November 2023) bars persons who organise draws or employees of permit holders involved in ticket production or in the event determining winning tickets from participating in those draws.

Article 37 defines the winner as the person who, by hitting or achieving the object of the event, becomes entitled to the prize and can prove it either by holding the ticket or participation receipt or by establishing winner status via suitable evidence. A self-styled winner who is not paid may complain to SEGOB, which will decide and where appropriate sanction the permit holder and order prize delivery.

Article 38 requires venues to be located exactly where SEGOB authorises and prohibits installation within 200 metres of basic, upper-secondary and higher education institutions or of registered places of worship. Where a draw is organised by such an institution, SEGOB may authorise the event at its own premises.

Article 43 requires the betting system to handle information adequately, avoid inducing error or being manipulated, and ensure adequate and timely dissemination of event information to the public on equal terms.

Article 46 bars brokers, intendants, their supervisors, other bet-related staff and customer-service personnel from participating personally (directly or through intermediaries) and from receiving any consideration from bettors for brokerage or bet-taking services, with the sole exception of tips.

Article 57 requires the frontón permit holder at all times to maintain continuous video and audio recording of every betting game, conserve those recordings at least 90 working days post-event, hold operating guidelines listing bet types, broker and supervisor names and the responsible judge and intendant, publish the day's programme with player names, approximate game times and yearly records, keep a public complaints book brought to the inspector's attention, and engage a qualified judge to officiate.

Article 73 requires bets in the cockfight scenario to be arranged exclusively by brokers authorised by the permit holder. No other person, employed or not, may arrange or assist with brokerage. The permit holder is responsible for paying brokered bets and for the resulting obligations.

Article 78 (reformed 16 November 2023) obliges the permit holder to seek SEGOB authorisation at least 30 days in advance for any special or promotional event at the remote-betting centre.

Article 82 allows bet-taking and prize-paying at remote-betting centres against the rules and limits authorised by SEGOB. The rules must be visible to the public. Aggregation with parimutuel or remote-betting pools located outside Mexico is forbidden.

Article 94 lets the permit holder request a ticket-volume increase once the sorteo is authorised, provided the prize amount is proportionally increased and the change is advertised in the authorised media. No ticket-price changes and no prize-amount reductions are allowed.

Article 95 requires the permit holder, at the start of the draw event, to announce the permit number, the inspector's name, the ticket count and unit price, the number of prizes and the draw procedure.

Article 98 lists the four lawful draw mechanics: tómbola, number formation, Lotería Nacional sorteo terminations, and approved RNG software. The RNG modality requires SEGOB pre-approval of the software with the permit application; the inspector must verify correct functioning and may operate the program at the draw. SEGOB may develop its own RNG software.

Article 100 requires results to be published at the permit-holder's cost within three calendar days of the draw, naming the winners, prizes won and the permit number, via the channels set in the permit. For instant draws, the holder must publish prizes cashed and delivered every 15 calendar days, in the same media used to promote the draw.

Article 101 prohibits authorising sorteos that promote tobacco, alcoholic beverages, medicines or products and articles harmful to health under the Ley General de Salud.

Article 104 requires sorteos held in Mexico and captured via internet or telephone to assign each participant a folio number. After acquiring the participation the participant must be able to consult and print, via internet, a folio constancia and the corresponding rights.

Article 106 requires the draw event (except instant draws) to give free and open public access, with that fact stated on the participation tickets.

Article 107 conditions ticket-sale-sorteo authorisations on prizes including taxes, duties and delivery costs.

Article 108 requires sorteo tickets and every form of printed advertising to display: ticket-issue volume, nominal ticket value, total issue value, prize count, top-prize value, permit number and validity, draw date, place and mechanic, and the channels and dates for publishing results.

Article 109 restricts sorteos without ticket sales to natural persons engaged in business activity and mercantile companies, and only to promote their activities.

Article 110 requires the application and permit to state the maximum number of tickets to be distributed, with that information communicated on the participation receipt and in the publicity of the promotion.

Article 112 (reformed 16 November 2023) requires the instant-draw applicant, in addition to the Title II Chapter I baseline, to provide the name, address and telephone of the permit-holder's authorised representatives in each state where tickets will be distributed, printed on the ticket alongside the DGJS address, and to comply with SEGOB-issued requirements on ticket production, sale control and validation that ensure confidentiality and verifiability.

Article 115 sets the mechanic for commercialisation-system draws: a tómbola containing spheres or similar objects identifying the group participants' numbers, drawn until a winner is determined.

Article 121 only allows prize delivery where the winning ticket is free of crossings, amendments or other serious alterations that cast doubt on winner identity or ticket authenticity, and has been properly completed with identifying details.

Article 122 excepts insubstantial errors in name or surname where the participant is identifiable via photo ID.

Article 123 defines an unclaimed prize as any good, service, cash or use-right that has not been claimed by a legitimate entitled person within an unextendable 20-working-day period from the draw date.

Article 124 defines symbol-and-number draws as those in which participants receive a set of characters and the winner is the first to complete the sequence drawn. It enumerates four modalities: traditional Mexican lotería symbol draw; number raffle (rifas de números, only in fairs and cockfight palenques); pre-printed number cards (only in salas de sorteos de números); and participant-selected number draw at remote-betting centres.

Article 125 requires permit holders to ensure operational transparency, correct functioning of symbol-and-number draws, and proper dissemination among participants of the drawn symbols and numbers and prize amounts.

Article 130 awards the symbol-and-number draw to the participant who first announces or 'sings' the winning phrase. Where more than one announces simultaneously, prizes are split proportionally.

Article 133 provisionally suspends a draw on installation faults or incidents preventing continuation. If unresolved after 25 minutes, the full price of cards and tickets must be refunded as they are returned to the table. Voluntary withdrawal does not trigger a refund but allows transfer of cards to other participants.

Article 134 requires the permit-holder representative to take note of disputes between organiser and participants and to give the complainant available information, including the permit text, so they can pursue applicable remedies.

Article 85 of the Reglamento authorises permit holders to receive wagers through electronic, computerised, telecommunications or satellite means, subject to inclusion in the operating manual approved by SEGOB. This is the article on which the entire Mexican online sector rests.

Article 85 only authorises remote and electronic wagering insofar as the activity is expressly described in the SEGOB-approved Manual Operativo. Any product, domain, mobile app or third-party platform that is not catalogued in the manual is treated as operating outside the perimeter of the permit, even where the holder is otherwise validly permitted.

Where a permit holder operates the .mx site as a white-label or skin of a foreign brand, the permit holder remains the regulated entity for all SEGOB purposes — player liabilities, AML obligations, advertising compliance and tax. Commercial arrangements with the brand owner do not displace the permit holder's accountability.

Permit holders operating remote channels must centralise wagering systems on infrastructure accessible to SEGOB for inspection and audit, including replication of player-account and transaction data.

Permit holders extending operations to the online channel must centralise the wagering-transaction log and player-account database on infrastructure physically located in Mexican territory, or on infrastructure replicated in real time to a Mexican mirror accessible to SEGOB and the SAT. The duty is the operational backbone of the regulator's audit and tax-verification rights over the .mx channel.

DGJS oficios require permit holders to notify each URL, sub-domain and mobile-application bundle identifier through which Mexican wagering is offered, together with the underlying licence reference. Unregistered domains are treated as operating outside the permit perimeter.

The Manual Operativo is the bespoke instrument SEGOB approves for each permit holder. It governs sites authorised, games offered, technical infrastructure, RG measures and remote-channel parameters. Material amendments require prior SEGOB authorisation.

The Manual Operativo carries a technical annex for the remote channel detailing the wagering platform, RNG suppliers, payment-service providers, KYC vendors, hosting topology and incident-response procedures. The annex is the working artefact DGJS inspectors review when auditing the .mx offering of a permit holder.

Only a sociedad mercantil constituted under Mexican law may hold a SEGOB permit. Offshore entities cannot directly hold permits and must operate via a Mexican subsidiary that meets the fit-and-proper criteria.

The Mexican-legal-personality requirement is also satisfied where a foreign company has established and registered a Mexican branch (sucursal) under the Ley General de Sociedades Mercantiles and the Código de Comercio, with the branch acting as the SEGOB-registered permit holder. The branch must carry its own RFC, statutory representative and registered domicile in Mexico.

Permit holders must post and maintain surety bonds (fianzas) in favour of the Tesorería de la Federación, calibrated to the permit class and to estimated tax and player liabilities.

The DGJS has repeatedly issued public communications stating that sites licensed in Curaçao, Costa Rica, the Isle of Man or other foreign jurisdictions that accept wagers from Mexican residents — including via Spanish-language landing pages, MXN deposits or .mx-targeted advertising — operate illegally under Mexican law regardless of the validity of their foreign licence. Permit holders are warned not to enter commercial relationships with such operators.

The Ley General de Responsabilidades Administrativas (LGRA) of 2016 — the operative statute of the Sistema Nacional Anticorrupción — disciplines public officials who grant, modify or renew SEGOB permits in violation of the legality, impartiality and objectivity principles. The LGRA also reaches private parties who induce administrative misconduct, including through facilitation payments, undue benefits or collusion.

The decree reforms Reglamento arts. 12, 20 and 85 to expressly prohibit the operation, exhibition, distribution and import of máquinas tragamonedas in establishments authorised under the LFJS. The prohibition extends to electronic, electromechanical and software-based slot equivalents.

The decree reforms Reglamento art. 12 to introduce a broadened definition of máquinas tragamonedas that captures electromechanical, electronic and software-based wagering machines regardless of physical form factor, including server-based gaming terminals. The definition closes interpretive workarounds that previously placed certain electronic devices outside the reach of the prohibition.

Article 2 of the decree gives permit holders a transitional period of up to five years to remove all installed slot machines from authorised establishments, calibrated to the residual term of the underlying permit.

The decree reforms Reglamento art. 27 to reduce the maximum term of new SEGOB permits from 25 years to 15 years and to make the new shorter term non-extendable, ending the renewability that had supported the long-cycle investment economics of the sector. Existing permits granted on 25-year terms remain in force only for their residual original term.

Installed slot inventory under existing permits must be progressively removed across a phase-out trajectory capped at five years from the decree's effective date, calibrated per establishment to the residual term of the underlying permit. The trajectory is mandatory, not aspirational — DGJS is empowered to verify decommissioning against the per-establishment schedule.

The decree prohibits SEGOB from authorising any new operations involving máquinas tragamonedas from the date of effect — including new permit grants, manual amendments adding slot product to existing permits, or expansion of slot inventory at existing authorised establishments. The bar is absolute and not subject to discretionary waiver.

Codere, Caliente, Logrand and other permit holders filed amparo indirecto proceedings during late 2023 and 2024 alleging violation of acquired rights, retroactivity, disproportionate impact and lack of regulatory-impact assessment (MIR/Conamer). Suspensions have been granted in several proceedings allowing continued operation pending resolution.

Between late 2023 and 2026 approximately 37 amparo indirecto proceedings have been filed against the 2023 slot-ban decree by permit holders, slot-machine suppliers and associated operating entities. The filings are concentrated before federal district courts in Mexico City and Nuevo León, with proceedings at various stages between provisional suspension, definitive suspension and substantive resolution.

The leading procedural argument in the slot-ban amparos is that SEGOB failed to submit the draft decree to the Comisión Nacional de Mejora Regulatoria for the mandatory Manifestación de Impacto Regulatorio prior to DOF publication, in breach of the Ley General de Mejora Regulatoria. If sustained at the SCJN, the procedural-defect ground would invalidate the decree without the Court having to reach the substantive acquired-rights questions.

As of 2026 several of the slot-ban amparos have reached the recurso de revisión stage and are working their way toward the Suprema Corte de Justicia de la Nación, which will resolve the substantive constitutional questions on a uniform basis. A SCJN ruling against the decree, in particular on the Conamer MIR procedural-defect ground, could collapse the prohibition for the entire sector; a ruling upholding the decree would terminate operating-day cover for all quejosos at once.

On the substantive side, quejosos argue that the slot-ban decree retroactively impairs derechos adquiridos under permits granted under the prior 2004 Reglamento regime — including the 25-year renewable term and the implicit slot-machine authorisation — in violation of art. 14 of the Constitution. The disproportionate-impact argument layers on top, contending that the five-year phase-out is insufficient to amortise legitimately acquired equipment and infrastructure.

Under the relatividad de las sentencias principle codified in art. 73 of the Ley de Amparo, amparo suspensions and judgments protect only the named quejoso. A suspension granted to Codere does not extend to Caliente, PlayCity or any non-party permit holder, and cannot be invoked by a supplier whose customer is not the named quejoso.

Under the Ley de Amparo, a provisional suspension is granted with the auto admisorio and runs only until the incidente de suspensión is resolved; the definitive suspension, granted after contradictorio, runs until the substantive amparo is resolved. Operators relying on a slot-ban suspension must distinguish which class of suspension covers each operating day, as the legal basis for continuing operations differs.

Fraction I of article 17 designates the practice of games with wagers, contests and draws — including those operated under SEGOB permits — as a vulnerable activity under the law, regardless of the legal vehicle through which they are operated.

Article 18 requires identification of every client, beneficial owner and counterparty above the statutory threshold, retention of documentation for at least five years, and refusal to operate where identification is impossible.

The casino-specific identification threshold is 325 UMA and the reporting threshold is 645 UMA per transaction or per series of related transactions in a six-month window. Cash transactions above 10,025 UMA trigger additional reporting and prohibition rules.

Article 32 prohibits the receipt of cash for certain high-value transactions, including the payment of prizes, above thresholds set in MXN-denominated UMA equivalents. Payment must be channelled through the financial system.

Permit holders must appoint an Oficial de Cumplimiento, adopt a formal AML manual, conduct annual staff training and submit to independent audit. The appointed officer is the named counterparty for SAT and UIF.

Suspicious or unusual transactions must be reported to the UIF through the SAT relay, in addition to ordinary threshold reports. Tipping off the client is prohibited and personal to the compliance officer.

Fraction XII of article 17 expressly enumerates the practice of games with wagers, contests and draws — operated under SEGOB permits or by any other legal vehicle, in physical premises or through electronic, computerised or telecommunications means — as a vulnerable activity. The fraction captures the operator, the brand and every cashier touchpoint, irrespective of corporate structure.

Fraction I of article 18 obliges every covered person to identify their clients and users and to integrate an identification file containing the official identification document, CURP, RFC where applicable, address proof and a recent photograph for sustained-relationship clients. The file must be kept in physical or electronic form for the entire life of the relationship plus the statutory retention period.

Fraction III requires covered persons to request information from the client to determine whether the client is acting on its own behalf or on behalf of a beneficial owner (dueño beneficiario). Where a beneficial owner exists, the same identification standard applies to that person.

Fraction IV requires covered persons to ask the client the intended purpose and nature of the business relationship and to record the answer in the client file. For gaming, this includes expected wagering pattern, source of funds and intended channels of play.

Fraction V obliges every covered person to adopt internal criteria, measures and procedures to comply with the law and its secondary regulations. For gaming operators this crystallises into the documented AML manual covering customer acceptance, risk classification, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping.

Fraction VI requires enhanced due diligence on persons considered politically exposed (personas políticamente expuestas, PEP), their close relatives and close associates. Senior management approval is required before opening or continuing the relationship.

Article 19 requires covered persons to retain identification files, supporting documents and transaction records for at least five years counted from the date of the act or operation. Retention must remain valid even if the relationship ends earlier.

Article 20 requires covered persons to file an aviso (notice) of vulnerable activities to the SAT no later than the seventeenth day of the month immediately following that in which the act or operation took place. Filings are made through the SAT vulnerable-activity portal (SPPLD).

Article 21 sets out the minimum content of every aviso: general data on the covered person, identification data on the client and beneficial owner, description of the act or operation, amount and means of payment, and the date. The SAT secondary rules specify the structured XML schema.

Article 22 prohibits covered persons, their officers, directors and employees from disclosing to the client or to any third party that an aviso, an STR or an unusual-operation notice has been filed. The duty of confidentiality binds the compliance officer personally and survives termination of employment.

Article 11 of the Reglamento LFPIORPI specifies the data and supporting documentation that must be obtained at onboarding for every client subject to identification, including unique identifiers (CURP, RFC, foreign tax-ID equivalents), contact information, occupation and economic activity. The covered person must verify the information against an authoritative source where reasonably available.

Article 12 of the Reglamento, read with the RCG, establishes tiered CDD: simplified for occasional clients below the identification threshold, standard for clients above the identification threshold (325 UMA per operation) and ongoing relationships, and enhanced for higher-risk profiles. Each tier specifies the minimum identification data set.

Article 13 requires covered persons to aggregate operations carried out by or for the same client within a rolling six-month window for threshold-testing purposes. Apparently unrelated operations that share economic substance must be aggregated.

Article 15 instructs covered persons to design and apply a risk-based approach, classifying clients by ML/TF risk taking into account jurisdiction, product, channel, transaction profile and the presence of PEP or high-risk indicators. The model must be documented, tested and revised periodically.

Rule 12 of the RCG requires covered persons in the gaming sector to verify CURP against the Renapo registry and RFC against the SAT registry where reasonably accessible. The verification result must be archived as part of the identification file.

Rule 21 requires covered persons that are legal entities to designate an Oficial de Cumplimiento and to notify the SAT through the SPPLD portal within fifteen business days of designation. The officer must have sufficient seniority, autonomy and resources to discharge the AML programme.

Rule 22 of the RCG requires covered persons to deliver annual AML training to all personnel involved in the vulnerable activity, with content tailored to the role. Records of attendance, materials and assessment results must be retained for the full five-year statutory window.

Rule 23 obliges covered persons to subject the AML programme to an annual independent audit covering the design and operating effectiveness of identification, monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping controls. Audit reports must be retained and made available to the SAT.

Rule 28 of the RCG requires that operations identified as unusual or concerning (operaciones inusuales o preocupantes) be reported through a dedicated 24-hour aviso channel, separate from the periodic monthly aviso. The 24-hour clock starts when the compliance officer concludes the operation meets the unusual threshold.

The 2024 reform package tightened the beneficial-ownership regime by lowering the percentage threshold for control attribution, requiring active verification rather than passive declaration, and aligning the definition with the Código Fiscal de la Federación arts. 32-B Ter, Quáter and Quinquies. Gaming covered persons must hold and refresh the UBO record on demand from the SAT.

The 2024 reform expanded coverage to include operations involving virtual assets (activos virtuales) and reaffirmed the LFPIORPI perimeter over crypto-funded gambling activity. Covered persons accepting crypto, stablecoin or token-denominated deposits must apply identification, monitoring and reporting on the on-ramp event.

The UIF maintains the Lista de Personas Bloqueadas under article 115 of the Ley de Instituciones de Crédito and parallel statutes. Although directly addressed at financial institutions, vulnerable-activity covered persons must screen clients and counterparties against the list as a matter of due-diligence prudence and to identify persons subject to international sanctions or domestic freezing orders.

Article 53 establishes the administrative-fine ladder for breaches of the LFPIORPI, scaled in UMA. Late filing of an aviso triggers a baseline fine; failure to identify, to report or to keep records can reach the highest band of up to 65,000 UMA per breach, and is computed per operation.

Article 9 of the Código Fiscal de la Federación and the supporting customs rules require declaration to the SAT-Aduanas of cash, cheques, money orders or monetary instruments crossing the Mexican border in amounts exceeding USD 10,000 equivalent. Casino marketing programmes that arrange high-roller travel must brief players on the declaration obligation and document any incoming cash event into the player account.

Where a casino offers services that constitute financial intermediation — stored-value cards, e-wallets, money-remittance functionality or extension of credit at scale — the Comisión Nacional Bancaria y de Valores' AML regime under art. 115 of the Ley de Instituciones de Crédito and the Disposiciones de Carácter General applicable to non-bank financial entities may apply in parallel to the LFPIORPI casino regime.

Article 15 creates, within the Fiscalía General de la República, an Unidad Especializada en Análisis Financiero (UEAF) competent to investigate the offences contemplated in the law and connected offences, with access to the information held by the SHCP and the UIF. The UEAF is the operational counterparty for criminal-stage AML referrals affecting gaming operators.

Article 23 directs the SHCP to issue, through Reglas de Carácter General, the specific characteristics, content and supporting documentation requirements for each aviso depending on the type of vulnerable activity. For casino and gaming operators, the active RCG set the XML schema, validation rules and the catálogo of operation types.

Article 24 requires that the aviso and its supporting documents be in Spanish, and that foreign-language documents be accompanied by a translation by a perito traductor. Information must be presented in the format and through the means determined by the SHCP.

Article 25 classifies the information contained in avisos and in supporting records as reserved and confidential under the federal transparency and personal-data regimes. The SHCP, the SAT and the UIF may use the information only for purposes set in this law and connected statutes.

Article 26 permits covered persons to rely on third parties to discharge identification obligations, but the covered person retains exclusive responsibility for compliance. Reliance is conditioned on a written agreement, on the third party meeting the identification standards in the law and on the covered person being able to obtain the underlying documentation on demand.

Article 27 obliges covered persons that are legal entities to maintain a compliance officer (encargado del cumplimiento) responsible for verifying that the LFPIORPI obligations are met. The encargado may be the legal representative or a dedicated officer, must be registered with the SAT and is the named point of contact for supervisory communications.

Article 29 obliges covered persons to suspend, in immediate terms, any act or operation with persons appearing on the lista de personas bloqueadas issued and updated by the SHCP. The list is communicated through the SAT and the UIF and covers persons subject to international sanctions, OFAC-type designations and domestic enforcement actions.

Article 33 reinforces art. 32 by clarifying that the prohibition on cash settlement above the statutory thresholds binds both parties to the operation. Receiving cash above the threshold is itself a breach, irrespective of who tendered the cash.

Article 35 coordinates LFPIORPI with the customs cross-border cash-declaration regime. Cash imports or exports above the customs threshold (USD 10,000 equivalent) trigger separate declarations under aduanas law; LFPIORPI information may be cross-referenced with customs filings for inbound high-roller funds.

Article 45 sets the structure of the administrative procedure leading to a sanction: detection of facts during a visita or desk audit, formal notification to the covered person, fifteen business days for the operator to formulate allegations and offer evidence, and a resolution from the SAT within the statutory deadline.

Article 49 directs the SAT to fix the quantum of the sanction taking into account the seriousness of the conduct, the economic capacity of the covered person, recidivism, the volume of the operation, the benefit obtained and any cooperation provided. Mitigating and aggravating factors must be expressed in the resolution.

Article 51 empowers the SAT, in addition to monetary sanctions, to revoke the registration of the covered person in the vulnerable-activity registry where the breach is of the highest severity or where there is reiterated non-compliance. Revocation does not extinguish other liabilities.

Article 52 authorises the SAT to publish firm sanctions on its institutional portal, identifying the sanctioned person and the breach. Publication has material reputational and counterparty-risk implications for casino operators dependent on banking relationships.

Article 55 treats unpaid LFPIORPI fines as créditos fiscales, recoverable through the SAT's procedimiento administrativo de ejecución (PAE). Collection mechanisms include freezing of bank accounts, embargo on movable and immovable assets and the buzón tributario notification path.

Article 56 establishes personal liability of the directors, administrators and legal representatives of a covered legal entity for breaches they authorised or in which they participated. Personal liability is in addition to entity-level sanctions.

Article 62 criminalises the provision of false information in an aviso or in records that should support an aviso, with imprisonment from two to eight years and a fine of five hundred to two thousand days. The offence may be charged against the encargado del cumplimiento and other staff who knowingly participated.

Article 63 criminalises the use, for personal benefit or third-party benefit, of the information obtained through avisos. Conviction carries imprisonment of six to twelve years and a fine of five hundred to two thousand days. The provision applies equally to public servants and to private-sector personnel with access.

Article 64 criminalises the disclosure to the client, the beneficial owner or a third party of the fact that an aviso has been or is about to be filed. Conviction carries imprisonment of two to eight years. The criminal track sits on top of the administrative tipping-off prohibition in art. 22.

Article 137 of the Ley del ISR requires withholding at a federal rate on prizes paid to natural persons, with state-level surcharges in entidades that have established additional levies. The total combined withholding can reach 21 percent.

The 2026 reform extends the IEPS to foreign residents that offer games with wagers or draws to persons located in Mexico, even where the operator has no permanent establishment in the country. The foreign operator must register before the SAT, designate a Mexican legal representative and a domicilio fiscal for notifications, and collect and remit the 50% IEPS on Mexican-sourced wagering income.

The reformed LIEPS empowers the SAT to instruct concesionarios de telecomunicaciones to block access to digital services of foreign-resident gambling operators that fail to register, fail to designate a Mexican representative, or fall behind on IEPS remittances. Blocking is administrative and may be lifted on regularisation.

The decree published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 7 November 2025, as part of the Paquete Económico 2026, reforms LIEPS art. 2 fracción II inciso B to raise the special tax on games with wagers and draws from 30 percent to 50 percent of the taxable base. The new rate applies to all permit holders and to foreign-resident operators in scope, with effect from 1 January 2026.

The Reglas de Carácter General accompanying the 2026 IEPS reform require digital intermediation platforms that facilitate games with wagers — including app stores, payment aggregators and white-label technology providers — to share transaction-level data with the SAT in near real time, identifying counterparties, amounts wagered and prizes paid.

Article 138 of the LISR establishes a 1 percent federal withholding by the operator on the value of each prize paid. Where the state prize tax exceeds 6 percent, the federal withholding rises to 21 percent so that the combined federal-plus-state burden on a winning ticket remains aligned to the LISR design.

Article 156 of the Código Fiscal de la Ciudad de México imposes a 6 percent local tax on the value of prizes paid to winners of authorised games with wagers, draws and contests, withheld at source by the operator and remitted monthly to the Secretaría de Administración y Finanzas.

The Ley de Hacienda del Estado de Nuevo León established a 10-15 percent state tax computed on the value of stakes (importe apostado), not on prizes or GGR. The model is the pioneer Mexican stakes-base levy and the principal candidate for harmonisation in the post-2026 reform pipeline.

Banco de México disposiciones generales applicable to financial entities require that operator remittances to foreign accounts in excess of statutory thresholds be channelled through institutions supervised under the Ley de Instituciones de Crédito, with traceable counterparty data and consistent FX-rate evidence.

Article 30 sets the minimum age at 18 and prohibits the entry of minors to any wagering establishment. Permit holders must verify age at the door and at remote-channel registration.

Cross-betting (apuestas remotas) permit holders must verify age at every retail kiosk and at remote-channel registration. The Reglamento bars under-18s from any wagering area including OTB lounges adjacent to permitted establishments, even where the wagering area is segregated from a non-gambling food and beverage zone.

Sorteo de números and number-draw centre permit holders are equally bound by the 18-year floor and must refuse ticket sales and prize redemption to minors, including through commercial-propaganda sorteos distributed by mass media.

Article 30 bis obliges permit holders to operate a self-exclusion register, accept self-exclusion requests from players, deny access for the requested period and refrain from sending marketing communications to self-excluded individuals.

The Reglamento requires permit holders to receive autoexclusión requests in writing, in person at any authorised establishment or via the remote channel, capture the applicant's official identification, and acknowledge receipt with a written constancia that fixes the effective date and scope of the exclusion.

The autoexclusión runs for the term elected by the applicant, with a typical operator floor of six months and the option of one-year, three-year or indefinite exclusion. The term may not be shortened on the applicant's request before expiry; renewal is automatic only where the applicant has elected the indefinite form.

After the elected term expires, reinstatement is not automatic: the applicant must present a written request, undergo a renewed identification check, and observe a cooling-off period before the permit holder may reopen the account. Indefinite exclusions require a documented attestation of treatment progress before reinstatement may be considered.

Permit holders must display responsible-gambling messaging and helpline information at visible points in each authorised establishment and on each remote channel.

CONADIC's lineamientos on adicciones include juego patológico as a behavioural addiction and direct treatment integration through the Centros de Atención Primaria en Adicciones (CAPA / UNEME-CAPA) network. Permit holders are expected to reference the CAPA network in their player-protection materials.

The Comisión Nacional contra las Adicciones (CONADIC) recognises gambling disorder (juego patológico) within its public-health remit and publishes treatment guidance, although it has no direct regulatory authority over permit holders.

The Comisión Nacional contra las Adicciones operates the national addictions hotline that has been adopted by the gambling sector as the de facto helpline. Permit holders must surface the CONADIC reference at the point of wagering, in the help section of every remote channel, and inside the autoexclusión constancia.

The Manual Operativo for each permit holder must set out customer-interaction triggers based on behavioural markers such as session length, deposit velocity and chasing-losses patterns. Interactions and outcomes must be logged.

Permit holders' Manual Operativo must include a loss-velocity trigger that initiates a documented RG outreach when a player's cumulative net losses over a rolling window exceed an operator-defined threshold. The outreach must offer deposit-limit, time-out and autoexclusión options.

Operator RG frameworks must include a session-length trigger (typically continuous play exceeding two to four hours) and a frequency trigger (daily logins across consecutive days) that prompts a reality-check overlay and an RG team review of the player.

Mexican players have three concurrent complaint avenues: DGJS (regulatory breach), PROFECO (consumer commercial dispute) and PRODECON for tax-withholding disputes against the operator's IEPS or ISR withholding. Permit holders must publish the three routes in their terms.

The Procuraduría Federal del Consumidor exercises consumer-protection jurisdiction over the gambling commercial relationship, including bonus-term disputes, withdrawal delays and advertising claims. Players may escalate complaints to PROFECO independently of any DGJS process.

Unlike Spain, Brazil and the United Kingdom, Mexico's RLFJS does not impose statutory default deposit, loss or time limits on player accounts. Limit-setting infrastructure is required by the Manual Operativo but the floor values, mandatory prompts and override controls are entirely operator-set.

Permit holders must display permanent responsible-gambling signage at the main entrance of every authorised establishment, at each bank of gaming positions, at cash desks and at restroom exits. Signage must include the 18-plus warning, autoexclusión access and the national addictions helpline.

Article 84 of the Reglamento defines the permitted scope of advertising for permitted gambling activities: it must accurately describe the authorised game, identify the permit holder by corporate name and permit number, and be limited to activities and sites covered by the permit. Cross-promotion of unauthorised products through the permit-holder brand is prohibited.

Article 85 prohibits gambling advertising that is deceptive, that misrepresents the probability of winning, that depicts or glamorises addictive behaviour, that targets or features minors, or that suggests gambling is a route to economic success or social validation.

Article 86 restricts the broadcast of gambling advertising on open-signal television and radio to the post-22:00 watershed window, with carve-outs for sports-event sponsorship integrations that remain subject to the article 85 content standards.

Article 87 obliges permit holders to seek SEGOB authorisation for the advertising of permitted activities, prohibits the inclusion of minors, and requires accurate representation of the games and odds. Misleading or unauthorised advertising is a basis for sanction.

Article 87 requires every gambling advertisement to carry a mandatory responsible-gambling message, the 18-plus age warning and a clearly legible reference to the CONADIC helpline. Disclosure must be present on both visual and audio creative.

Article 246 of the Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión empowers the Instituto Federal de Telecomunicaciones to classify programming and enforce the protection of child audiences, providing the enforcement spine for the gambling-advertising watershed restriction.

The Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios has historically asserted authority over the broadcast advertising of gambling on health-risk grounds and has issued sanction proceedings. The competence has been judicially contested.

Cofepris claims jurisdiction to require prior approval of broadcast creative that includes references to recreational consumption or any addiction-adjacent imagery, on the basis of its health-risk mandate under the Ley General de Salud. The claim is contested by permit holders who treat SEGOB as the exclusive advertising authority.

The Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones y Radiodifusión and the Ley General de Salud constrain the schedule, content and intensity of broadcast gambling advertising, restricting placement during child-audience programming.

Article 52 of the Ley General de Responsabilidades Administrativas captures the giving of any benefit to a public servant, prohibiting the appearance of serving federal, state or municipal officials in gambling advertising whether paid or complimentary.

Permit holders remain liable for the content distributed by their affiliates and influencers. Affiliate engagements must be documented in the Manual Operativo and SEGOB may require disclosure of marketing-partner contracts.

Welcome bonuses, free bets and other promotions must be disclosed with full terms in proximity to the headline claim, including wagering requirements, expiry and excluded games. The Manual Operativo must list every active promotion.

The Consejo de Autorregulación y Ética Publicitaria (CONAR) operates a voluntary code that signatory advertisers and agencies apply across categories including gambling. The code overlays the Reglamento with industry norms on truthfulness, taste, and protection of vulnerable audiences, and CONAR may issue non-binding rulings on complaints.

Initiatives circulated in the Cámara de Diputados under the Sheinbaum administration propose to extend the 22:00 watershed to a full 06:00-22:00 prohibition, ban gambling advertising during sports broadcasts and on transport infrastructure, prohibit influencer marketing, and forbid the use of footballers and baseball players in gambling creative. None of the proposals has yet been promulgated in the DOF.

Existing CONAR norms discourage and Sheinbaum-era proposals would prohibit the use of active footballers, baseball players and other sports figures in gambling advertising on the basis of their disproportionate influence on under-18 audiences. The Reglamento art. 85 prohibition on advertising that targets minors is the operative current back-stop.

SEP and CONACYT (now CONAHCYT) guidance prohibits the placement of gambling advertising in or adjacent to educational establishments, on official student platforms or in association with student-targeted scholarships and contests. The Reglamento art. 85 minors prohibition is the operative back-stop where the SEP guidance is not directly enforceable on the operator.

Article 9 requires advertising of authorised games and venues to comply with the applicable rules. Advertising may only be deployed once SEGOB has granted the permit. Permitted establishments may not explicitly promote the bets they take; ads must be clear and non-misleading, carry the permit number, state that betting is prohibited to minors and include a responsible-gambling message.

Article 117 brings commercial contest, Q&A and similar programmes offering prizes (where chance intervenes at any stage and they are broadcast or promoted via mass media) within SEGOB authorisation and supervision via the Dirección General de Radio, Televisión y Cinematografía, alongside applicable rules and the Reglamento. The Unidad de Gobierno's favourable opinion is required. Concessionaires and broadcasters must verify that third-party promoters of such contests hold prior authorisation.

Mexico co-hosts the FIFA World Cup in June and July 2026, with matches in CDMX, Guadalajara and Monterrey. The tournament concentrates demand for sports-betting capacity, intensifies pressure on SEGOB enforcement of unlicensed offshore operators and accelerates the political timetable for the reform pipeline.

Article 158 guarantees the right to be heard, to produce evidence and to be notified of every procedural step in a sanction proceeding. Procedural defects are a routine basis for amparo challenges to SEGOB decisions.

Articles 259 to 264 set the penalty structure, aggravating circumstances and the rules on corporate liability for the offences of arts. 257 and 258. Penalties may be increased where minors participate.

The Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera and Fiscalía General de la República have pursued high-profile money-laundering investigations against clandestine gambling networks under the Código Penal Federal Title XXIII (operaciones con recursos de procedencia ilícita), with parallel asset-freezing under the LFED (Ley Federal de Extinción de Dominio).