Francisco Yunes, from the PRI, warned that the reform harms the constitutional principles of guarantees of hearing and legal certainty, enshrined in articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, since “it gives the FIU the power to block accounts, possessions without a mandate judicial”.
“Only the Public Ministry under judicial guidelines can impose seizures or freezes on bank accounts. To put it bluntly, (the FIU) has pulled the freeze on the accounts out of its sleeve,” PAN member Gina Campuzano also alleged.
Article 115 of the Law of Credit Institutions authorizes the “blocking of persons” but this consists in that “the account holder who is in this case has his contractual relationship (with the bank) canceled and, as a consequence, their resources at their disposal.
Instead, “what the FIU has done is an improper and unconstitutional freezing of accounts,” added Deputy Patricia Terrazas, also a PAN member.
For Morena, deputy Susana Prieto Terrazas explained that the FIU has been authorized by case law thesis 21/98 issued by the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) by determining that the blockade is a precautionary measure in which the prior hearing guarantee.
With the reform, it is sought that the FIU act promptly and expeditiously to avoid the leak of information, “the procedure in this trial is not summary, it is summary” because the banks sometimes overlap their clients or are accomplices, he added.
For this reason, he considered it appropriate that the banks be the ones to notify the affected clients, and after the bank blockade.
“With the approval of this opinion there will no longer be protection or suspension that prevents the freezing of resources of criminals and terrorists that affect the financial system,” warned the Morenista Carlos Augusto Pérez Hernández.
However, Lidia García Anaya, also from Moreno, warned: “This reform is not against organized crime, it is against individuals and legal entities, with a first and last name, who have seen their rights violated and the legality (this) leaves defenseless to citizens, violating their rights to a free hearing and, above all, to notification.”
