Mexico
In June 2021 Mexico sought to tighten control over financial operations in casinos and gaming halls.
SEGOB and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) signed a collaboration agreement to prevent and combat possible acts of corruption linked to the gaming and betting sector.
In Mexico, the number of casinos on record in the Ministry of the Interior do not tally with numbers kept by municipal governments. As such, Mexico overall presents a chaotic gambling landscape, dominated by a handful of players who have political connections in the highest places.
In addition to close political ties between gambling tsars and politicians, local judges often provide legal relief by blocking government sanctioned closures. Indeed, the issue of local courts and casinos is one of the most controversial aspects of the Mexican gaming industry and many casinos have in the past been able to remain open or avoid closure after they have sought protection in local courts.
In 2014, Mexico’s Federal Judicial Council P42 WIRE / PULSE / INSIGHT / REPORTS
Gambling related corruption goes back to the very beginnings of the casino industry itself and it is believed that lawmakers use casinos to tap into large amounts of cash in order to fund political campaigns and make themselves even richer. Te fact that there is no comprehensive law in place has only served to enable corruption further.
suspended two federal judge magistrates and an additional federal judge, for allegedly issuing rulings favouring one of Mexico’s leading casino operators. Te suspensions followed an extensive anticorruption investigation involving the Mexican judiciary and the casino industry dating back to 2011. In November 2014, a Mexican Court upheld the revocation of the licence granted in 2005 to Entretenimiento de México (EMEX ).Te licence allowed EMEX to operate 50 casinos for 25 years. Owned by
brothers Arturo Rojas Cardona and Juan Jose Rojas Cardona, EMEX was one of the largest operators in Mexico.
Te Judiciary Council determined that it was fully demonstrated that a federal judge had acted irregularly in resolving a number of lawsuits related to the granting of permits for the operation of casinos owned by Juan José Rojas Cardonas, the so called "Czar of Casinos.” Te Supreme Court of Justice confirmed the
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128
