However, that does not mean a better or worse job in the fight against the commission of crimes within the SAT, said analysts consulted by Expansion. It is even important to specify that it is the SAT itself that supervises the work of its workers and, depending on what is warranted, presents the public servants to the authority or the OIC.
“The SAT, in the last 10 or 15 years, has done committed work against irregular practices within it. “We must consider that the number of officials is significantly lower than in the past,” said Luis Pérez de Acha, founding partner and director of the Pérez de Acha e Ibarra de Rueda office, while pointing out that in the previous six-year term, due to the pandemic , there were two lost years (2020 and 2021).
Gabriel Pérez del Peral, an academic at the School of Government and Economics at the Pan American University (UP), said that “the research folders judicialize them around political issues; This judicialization has been used as a political weapon, which is why there is a decrease in complaints from SAT officials.”
The range of crimes for which officials are referred to the judicial authority include falsification of documents, fraud, use of false documents and, those with the highest incidence, Illicit Access to Computer Systems and Equipment and illicit exercise of public service, according to data from the SHCP.
Illicit access to computer systems and equipment “can imply that information was stolen, that taxpayers with debts were deleted, or that they did something improper with the access they had to the SAT database. That is serious,” Pérez de Acha lamented.
The fact that there is a notable difference between the number of officials referred to the OIC and the judicial authority has to do with the fact that “proving administrative misconduct is much simpler than in criminal matters,” Pérez de Acha stressed. “Officials who are corrupt manage to ensure that their acts of corruption cannot be traced,” he added.
Challenges
To achieve a better fight against corruption, one of the keys has to do with achieving more efficient application of the laws. “The sanctions are strong, what is missing are investigation mechanisms, strengthened internal procedures, as well as monitoring and anonymous reporting,” said Pérez de Acha.
“Procedures must be perfected and the corresponding sanctions applied,” he added, while emphasizing that all investigations and procedures must respect the rights of the accused, starting with the presumption of innocence.
Another challenge has to do with “an aspect of public management called compliance“, which has to do with “responsibility, which implies transparency, accountability and directing public management to results, very important to reduce corruption rates and tax crimes,” said Pérez del Peral.
In that sense, the UP academic added, greater coordination is required between the Ministry of Public Administration (SFP), the Secretary of the Treasury and the Tax Administration Service.
The SFP is in charge of supervising all regulations related to the public sector and government management in general, explained Pérez del Peral.
Another challenge facing the tax authority is in customs, particularly with the fight against corruption and with the training and preparation of personnel. “If you are going to allow the Navy and Defense to review customs, accelerate customs training, prepare customs tax officials,” said Pérez del Peral.
