Jurisdictions › Mexico

Mexico

National jurisdiction

Large market, but only enter with a compliant DGJS permit structure, robust AML, and unit economics that survive a 50% IEPS.

6 restricted · 2 closed · 5 uncertain · 7 not yet assessed → 20 classes
Collected 24 Oct 2026 · Published 24 Oct 2026 · Changed 18 Oct 2026 PDF Sign in for PDF Compare

Can we offer our product?

Every product class, in fixed taxonomy order. The band is what you can do; where the recorded legal status says something the band does not, it is shown beside the product.

Player products

  • Casino
    Restricted
  • Poker
    Restricted
  • Bingo
    Restricted
  • LotteryState monopoly (sole exception to a general prohibition)
    Closed
  • Sports betting
    Restricted
  • Other event betting
    Not yet assessed
  • Horse and greyhound racing betting
    Not yet assessed
  • Esports bettingGrey zone
    Uncertain
  • Exchange betting
    Not yet assessed
  • Pool betting
    Not yet assessed
  • Virtual event betting
    Not yet assessed
  • Fantasy sportsGrey zone
    Uncertain
  • Skill gamesGrey zone
    Uncertain
  • Prediction markets
    Not yet assessed
  • Sweepstakes
    Restricted
  • Free play
    Not yet assessed

Supply roles

  • Software / B2BNot yet regulated
    Uncertain
  • Affiliate marketingNot yet regulated
    Uncertain
  • Payments for gambling
    Restricted

Settlement rail

  • Crypto gamblingProhibited (not actively enforced)
    Closed

No class-level certainty grade is recorded for this jurisdiction yet; confidence is carried per section below.

Board briefing

Mexico is a large, growing LatAm online market now facing a punitive 50% IEPS and acute organised-crime/AML overhang.

What has changed

  • The 2026 Economic Package raised gambling IEPS from 30% to 50%, brought non-resident online operators into scope, and granted SAT real-time data access plus temporary site-blocking against non-compliant sites; the Senate approved on 29 October 2025.

What to do now

  • Stress-test unit economics against a 50% (likely turnover-based) IEPS; secure a compliant DGJS permit route via a Mexican entity; build robust AML/CDD and organised-crime counterparty diligence; avoid offshore exposure to MX players.

What to watch

  • The contested IEPS base (turnover vs GGR), the replacement gaming law and possible Instituto Nacional de Juegos y Sorteos (review extended to Aug 2027), and SAT site-blocking enforcement against offshore operators.

11 answers, each dated and graded

The weather grades favourability for an operator, not legality: legality is the product table above. The left rule is our confidence: solid confirmed, dashed probable, dotted uncertain.

01 · What kind of market is this?

Overview

Mixed

The dominant development for Mexico is a joint OFAC/UIF enforcement action naming a licensed quarter-horse racing venue, Club La Molienda in Nuevo Laredo, as part of a Cartel del Noreste financial network, alongside continued procedural progress on the long-pending reform to the 1947 Ley Federal de …

Full analysis · 152 words

The dominant development for Mexico is a joint OFAC/UIF enforcement action naming a licensed quarter-horse racing venue, Club La Molienda in Nuevo Laredo, as part of a Cartel del Noreste financial network, alongside continued procedural progress on the long-pending reform to the 1947 Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos. The US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control designated the network on 13 October 2026 under Executive Order 14059 and Executive Order 13224 as amended by Executive Order 13886, its fourth and largest action to date against this cartel's financial infrastructure. Mexico's Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera mirrored the designation the same day via its Lista de Personas Bloqueadas mechanism, described as a preventive administrative measure rather than a final liability finding. Separately, Segob's draft replacement of the 1947 gambling statute has reportedly cleared internal review and moved to the Gabinete de Seguridad Nacional ahead of Congressional submission, without a published text yet available.

  • Outdated 1947 statutory framework
  • 2026 IEPS hike to 50%
  • Substantial black market
  • Organised-crime overlay
Not reviewed Information added after the 2 Sep 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewedRead update

Mexico's licensed online gambling market continues to operate through federal permits under the Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos, typically structured as multi-brand sub-licensing arrangements beneath a single permissionaire, such as the Ganador Azteca S.A.P.I. permit associated with Grupo Salinas. The period's dominant dynamic is DGJS's active, contested enforcement posture: the 6 July 2026 suspension of ten online casino domains, including betano.mx and bet365.mx, follows a pattern in which at least one prior, similarly structured DGJS suspension order was overturned by a federal court for failing due-process requirements. Separately, the constitutionality of the 2023 decree ending new slot-machine casino permits remains before the Suprema Corte, which deferred ruling as of July 2026, leaving that product class in an unresolved legal position. SEGOB's parallel scrutiny of twenty alleged casino permits tied to a political-corruption network, resulting in two permit cancellations in April 2026, adds a further layer of permit-lineage risk distinct from operator conduct. Civil-law instrument hierarchy matters here: the enabling Ley is unchanged, while the Reglamento and DGJS administrative orders are the live, more contested layer of the framework.

ProbableNot reviewed1 post-review update · Not reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
02 · Can we get a licence?

Licensing and regulation

Mixed

Mexico's licensing framework operates through the federal permit system created under the 1947 Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos and administered by the Dirección General de Juegos y Sorteos within SEGOB. The implementing Reglamento, amended in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 16 November 2023, …

Full analysis · 258 words

Mexico's licensing framework operates through the federal permit system created under the 1947 Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos and administered by the Dirección General de Juegos y Sorteos within SEGOB. The implementing Reglamento, amended in the Diario Oficial de la Federación on 16 November 2023, ties each permit to a specific event or establishment: an operator cannot cover multiple physical locations under a single permit, and any change of location requires an entirely new permit application. This is a confirmed, primary-instrument rule rather than guidance, and it is the clearest durable structure in the current regime. No standalone online-gaming licence category exists, so online sports betting and other digital wagering products are folded into the same general federal permit regime that governs physical establishments, with no bespoke digital licence, capital requirement, or technical-standards track identified. Three pending reform tracks — a SEGOB executive draft, a federal bill, and a Mexico City Congress initiative — all target this structural gap, but none has been enacted, so the establishment-bound permit regime remains the operative framework for market entry. On permit duration, counsel-confirmed (Ramparts, 20 September 2026): a pre-Decree permit runs to 25 years and, if renewed, is capped at 15 years, and the Reglamento article 33 term applies both to new permits and to pre-Decree permits where the holder re-applies. This diverges from published law-firm analysis (Greenberg Traurig), which reads the 2023 reform as re-basing existing permissions to a non-renewable 15-year term without extensions. The counsel position is carried as authoritative; the divergence is recorded rather than silently resolved.

ProbableNot reviewed · changed since expert reviewRead full analysis & tables →
03 · How hard is entry, really?

Market entry in practice

Mixed

Entry requires a Mexican-registered entity attached to or holding a DGJS permit. Permits historically issued to a limited number of operators; timelines are long and discretionary. The 2026 IEPS hike materially worsens unit economics, and the organised-crime overlay creates due-diligence burden. B2B…

Full analysis · 48 words

Entry requires a Mexican-registered entity attached to or holding a DGJS permit. Permits historically issued to a limited number of operators; timelines are long and discretionary. The 2026 IEPS hike materially worsens unit economics, and the organised-crime overlay creates due-diligence burden. B2B suppliers must route through permit holders.

UncertainNot reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
04 · What do the licences cost?

Licence fees

Mixed

Permit holders pay a federal 'participación' (aprovechamiento) of 1-2% of income depending on bet origin and permit type — generally 2% on horse/greyhound tracks and 1% on national/international sporting events. Application and annual fees are not transparently published; figures rest on advisory so…

Full analysis · 43 words

Permit holders pay a federal 'participación' (aprovechamiento) of 1-2% of income depending on bet origin and permit type — generally 2% on horse/greyhound tracks and 1% on national/international sporting events. Application and annual fees are not transparently published; figures rest on advisory sources.

Not reviewed Information added after the 2 Sep 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewedRead update

The federal IEPS excise tax on juegos con apuestas y sorteos (gambling and lottery games) was raised from thirty percent to fifty percent of gross gaming revenue by decree published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion on 7 November 2025, effective 1 January 2026. Liability under the revised rate extends to non-resident operators offering digital gambling services into Mexico, meaning the increase applies regardless of whether an operator holds a domestic land-based permit or serves the market purely online from abroad. This is a substantial increase to the headline cost of operating in the jurisdiction and represents the single most concrete cost-to-operate development identified this cycle. No new AML/CFT or responsible-gambling compliance-lift development specific to cost was identified beyond this fiscal change.

Not reviewedRead update

The cost of operating in Mexico rose sharply this cycle. The IEPS rate on gross gaming revenue for betting and online-casino activity was raised from 30% to 50%, effective 1 January 2026 under a decree published in the DOF on 7 November 2025. This stacks with the existing 30% federal corporate income tax (ISR) and state-level levies of 6-13%, producing a substantially higher aggregate fiscal burden than the prior year. The increase applies explicitly to offshore and foreign operators without Mexican establishment, with SAT empowered to block non-payers, closing off a route by which unlicensed foreign platforms might otherwise have avoided the levy. Combined with new SAT server-access and LFPIORPI compliance obligations landing in the same cycle, the total cost-to-operate picture for Mexico has deteriorated materially rather than incrementally.

Not reviewedRead update

The dominant structural cost for gambling operators in Mexico is the Impuesto Especial sobre Producción y Servicios, the federal excise tax applied to games with bets and draws, which industry sources place in a 30 to 50 percent band on gross gaming revenue. That figure carries an uncertain confidence rating: it derives from secondary industry commentary rather than an independently retrieved SAT or Hacienda rate schedule, so no confirmed effective rate can be stated this cycle. Operators should treat the 30 to 50 percent band as directional rather than dispositive and commission direct verification against a primary tax-authority source before finalising financial projections. No new evidence was produced this cycle on AML/CFT compliance lift, responsible-gambling obligations, or technical-certification cost, so those dimensions of the compliance burden should be read as unchanged from the existing baseline rather than newly assessed, and the overall cost-to-operate picture for Mexico remains anchored on the IEPS excise tax pending a confirmed rate schedule.

UncertainNot reviewed3 post-review updates · Not reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
05 · What is the tax take?

Tax

Unfavourable

MATERIAL CHANGE: The 2026 Economic Package raised the IEPS rate on games with bets from 30% to 50%, bringing non-resident online operators into scope. The Chamber of Deputies approved (351-129) in October 2025 and the Senate on 29 October 2025 (74-35). The IEPS base is gross gaming revenue net of pr…

Full analysis · 193 words

MATERIAL CHANGE: The 2026 Economic Package raised the IEPS rate on games with bets from 30% to 50%, bringing non-resident online operators into scope. The Chamber of Deputies approved (351-129) in October 2025 and the Senate on 29 October 2025 (74-35). The IEPS base is gross gaming revenue net of prizes paid, counsel-confirmed (Ramparts, 20 September 2026), resolving the turnover-versus-GGR question previously carried as an open gap; limited offsets include state gaming taxes up to 20% of IEPS. State gaming taxes run 6% to 12%, so the combined State and federal IEPS burden is 56% to 62% of GGR. Corporate ISR is 30% and gambling is VAT-exempt. Counsel further advises that player winnings attract 1% federal ISR where the applicable state tax is 6% or below, rising to 21% where it exceeds 6%; with nearly all 32 states at or below 6%, the combined player deduction is typically 7%. That player-winnings figure rests on counsel's assertion sourced to a commercial tax calculator rather than to the Ley del ISR itself, and is therefore carried at probable confidence pending a primary-instrument check. The combined burden is among the highest for regulated markets in LatAm.

ProbableExpert approvedRead full analysis & tables →
06 · Can we move player money?

Payments and banking

Mixed

Permit holders may accept standard funding methods (cards, bank transfers, e-wallets). Gambling is VAT-exempt, but PSPs face heightened AML scrutiny given the sector's organised-crime overlay. The 2026 reform grants SAT real-time access to operational data and introduces site-blocking, increasing pa…

Full analysis · 44 words

Permit holders may accept standard funding methods (cards, bank transfers, e-wallets). Gambling is VAT-exempt, but PSPs face heightened AML scrutiny given the sector's organised-crime overlay. The 2026 reform grants SAT real-time access to operational data and introduces site-blocking, increasing payment-channel risk for non-compliant flows.

Not reviewed Information added after the 2 Sep 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewedRead update

Payments and cross-border money-flow risk rose materially this cycle. A pending FinCEN Section 311 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published 13 November 2025, would sever ten named Mexican gambling establishments from the US correspondent-banking system if finalised — an uncertain but material development given its explicit targeting of the gambling sector. This sits alongside findings from the November 2025 casino-suspension probe, which identified cross-border financial flows connected to the United States, Romania, Albania, Malta, Panama, Switzerland and the UAE. Together these developments indicate that Mexican gambling operators' access to international correspondent-banking rails is under active and specific scrutiny, with a finalised US rule representing the clearest near-term escalation risk to monitor.

UncertainNot reviewed1 post-review update · Not reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
07 · Can we advertise?

Marketing

Mixed

Advertising for permit-authorised online pages must comply with the same rules as physical establishments under the LFJS, Reglamento and DGJS Lineamientos. There is no comprehensive standalone advertising statute; the regime is permissive relative to EU comparators but subject to general consumer-pr…

Full analysis · 44 words

Advertising for permit-authorised online pages must comply with the same rules as physical establishments under the LFJS, Reglamento and DGJS Lineamientos. There is no comprehensive standalone advertising statute; the regime is permissive relative to EU comparators but subject to general consumer-protection and DGJS conditions.

UncertainNot reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
08 · What must the platform meet?

Technical compliance

Mixed

The 2026 IEPS reform mandates a specific technical-compliance architecture for digital gambling platforms: a central betting-transaction system, a cash-control system, and a system providing SAT with permanent, real-time online information. This requirement, grounded in the decree published in the D…

Full analysis · 141 words

The 2026 IEPS reform mandates a specific technical-compliance architecture for digital gambling platforms: a central betting-transaction system, a cash-control system, and a system providing SAT with permanent, real-time online information. This requirement, grounded in the decree published in the Diario Oficial de la Federacion on 7 November 2025, applies equally to resident and foreign digital operators serving Mexico-based participants, meaning offshore platforms cannot avoid the technical build-out by operating outside domestic licensing. No certification body, standard-setting scheme, or cost figure for implementing this architecture was identified in the evidence reviewed this cycle, so the practical build cost and lead time for compliance remain unquantified. The obligation is confirmed and durable, tracing to primary legislation rather than a circular, which raises the likelihood it persists regardless of the outcome of the parallel reform-horizon tracks pursuing a wider rewrite of the gaming law.

UncertainNot reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
09 · Can we ship through apps and platforms?

Distribution and platforms

Mixed

Distribution-level enforcement against unauthorized gambling platforms is being coordinated across fiscal, financial and telecommunications authorities through domain-blocking and payment-method restrictions, rather than being left to a single regulator. This countermeasure is grounded in the gambli…

Full analysis · 126 words

Distribution-level enforcement against unauthorized gambling platforms is being coordinated across fiscal, financial and telecommunications authorities through domain-blocking and payment-method restrictions, rather than being left to a single regulator. This countermeasure is grounded in the gambling-specific Reglamento as an accessory-liability basis, consistent with a civil-law pattern of treating unlicensed operation as an offence under the sector's own statutory stack rather than a separate platform-access statute. The evidence for this cycle is carried at probable rather than confirmed confidence, resting on trade-press sourcing rather than a primary instrument. For any platform without a Mexican permisionario licence, the practical consequence is that both the domain through which the service is accessed and the payment rails used to fund it are now coordinated enforcement targets rather than independent risk surfaces.

UncertainNot reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
10 · How hard does the regulator enforce?

Enforcement

Mixed

On 13 October 2026, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control designated a Cartel del Noreste financial network under Executive Order 14059 (illicit drug trade) and Executive Order 13224 as amended by Executive Order 13886 (terrorism financing), naming the licensed Nuevo Laredo quarter-hors…

Full analysis · 261 words

On 13 October 2026, the US Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control designated a Cartel del Noreste financial network under Executive Order 14059 (illicit drug trade) and Executive Order 13224 as amended by Executive Order 13886 (terrorism financing), naming the licensed Nuevo Laredo quarter-horse racetrack Club La Molienda and the associated racing barn Cuadra San Dibanh among the designated entities. This is reported as the fourth and largest OFAC action to date against this cartel's financial infrastructure. Mexico's Unidad de Inteligencia Financiera mirrored the designation the same day through its Lista de Personas Bloqueadas mechanism under the LFPIORPI anti-money-laundering framework, a step the UIF itself describes as a preventive administrative measure rather than a final determination of responsibility, with affected parties retaining a garantía de audiencia (right to be heard). The two governments' responses diverge in legal character: the US designation is an extraterritorial sanctions action with immediate asset-freezing effect, while the Mexican mirror is a narrower domestic administrative freeze pending further process. The principal licence-revocation risk driver visible is a licensed venue's direct naming in a cross-border illicit-finance network, which exposes continued licensure and banking access to scrutiny independent of any completed domestic investigation. A second driver is the UIF's preventive-freeze mechanism itself, which can activate on administrative indicators of atypical financial activity ahead of any final liability finding, disrupting a licensed operator's banking relationships before the underlying question is resolved. No other enforcement events touching gambling-licensed entities in Mexico were evidenced, and the evidence here does not extend to a general theory of unregulated-sector enforcement beyond this specific case.

Not reviewed Information added after the 2 Sep 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewedRead update

DGJS's enforcement posture against online casino operators this period is active and legally contested. On 6 July 2026, DGJS suspended ten online casino domains, including betano.mx and bet365.mx, tied to the Ganador Azteca S.A.P.I. permit associated with Grupo Salinas. This follows a related pattern: in March 2026, the Juzgado Segundo de Distrito en Materia Administrativa in Mexico City granted an amparo against a prior DGJS suspension order (oficio SG/DGJS/3399/2025), finding it failed to meet procedural due-process requirements, and ordered DGJS to permit resumption of operations within three days. Together these events describe a regulator willing to exercise domain-suspension power against permitted online operators, with that power subject to successful judicial challenge on procedural grounds at least once in the period. Underlying operational obligations remain governed by the Reglamento de la Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos: Article 35 requires a permissionaire to obtain express prior authorisation from the Secretaría de Gobernación before cancelling or suspending an authorised game or raffle, and specifies that cancellation or suspension does not extinguish accrued obligations or third-party rights — a durable regulatory baseline against which DGJS's own suspension actions sit. A separate scrutiny vector, run by SEGOB rather than DGJS, saw twenty alleged casino permits queried in connection with a political-corruption network, with two related permits (Centenario and Diamante) cancelled on 14 April 2026, indicating permit-lineage integrity itself is under active governmental review.

Not reviewedRead update

SEGOB's Direccion General de Juegos y Sorteos (DGJS) suspended ten authorised online-casino domains in July 2026 amid money-laundering and terror-financing-related investigations, exercising suspension authority that derives from the existing LFJS/RLFJS authorisation regime rather than from any new statute. This is a material escalation from prior quieter enforcement periods and demonstrates SEGOB's willingness to act against multiple authorised domains in a single coordinated action. The action sits alongside a standing external pressure point: a June 2025 FinCEN finding identified ten Mexico-based gambling establishments as being of primary money-laundering concern in connection with Sinaloa Cartel proceeds, a finding that, while not new this cycle, forms part of the sustained cross-border backdrop informing SEGOB's own domestic reform push. Operators should treat AML-linked domain-suspension risk as elevated for online-casino operations specifically, given the DGJS has now shown it will use its existing authorisation powers assertively even ahead of the pending LFJS reform taking effect.

Not reviewedRead update

Enforcement escalated materially this cycle through two coordinated actions. In November 2025, SEGOB, the UIF and SHCP together suspended thirteen casinos following a joint investigation into money laundering, tax evasion and organised-crime links, with the probe identifying cross-border flows to the United States, Romania, Albania, Malta, Panama, Switzerland and the UAE. In July 2026, DGJS suspended ten online casino domains operating under authorised permits, citing a money-laundering and terrorism-financing investigation. Under the applicable civil-law enforcement-theory framing, unlicensed or non-compliant gambling activity is typically actioned through the statutory licensing stack itself, with DURABLE status attaching to the enabling 1947 Act and MIXED or FRAGILE status attaching to implementing decrees and circulars. No articulated safe-harbour doctrine was evidenced this cycle. The scale, coordination and cross-border reach of these two actions represent a genuine security-cabinet-level escalation rather than routine administrative oversight, and licence-revocation risk should now be assessed as materially elevated for any operator with AML, tax or beneficial-ownership exposure.

ProbableNot reviewed · changed since expert review3 post-review updates · Not reviewed8 enforcement eventsRead full analysis & tables →
11 · What is coming?

Outlook

Mixed

The major anticipated reform is a replacement of the 1947 statute. Lawmaker Ricardo Mejía filed a proposal (dated Oct 2025) creating the Instituto Nacional de Juegos y Sorteos; the Chamber extended review until 31 August 2027, so it will not pass before the 2026 World Cup. The Sheinbaum administrati…

Full analysis · 67 words

The major anticipated reform is a replacement of the 1947 statute. Lawmaker Ricardo Mejía filed a proposal (dated Oct 2025) creating the Instituto Nacional de Juegos y Sorteos; the Chamber extended review until 31 August 2027, so it will not pass before the 2026 World Cup. The Sheinbaum administration confirmed SEGOB is drafting gambling-law reforms. Direction is mixed: tightening (50% IEPS, AML, site-blocking) alongside liberalising modernisation intent.

Not reviewed Information added after the 2 Sep 2026 expert review — published for currency and labelled not reviewed.
Not reviewedRead update

Mexico's Secretaría de Gobernación has reportedly finalized its internal proposal for a new Ley de Juegos y Sorteos, intended to replace the 1947 statute, and forwarded it to the Gabinete de Seguridad Nacional, the stage immediately preceding Congressional submission. The draft decree is understood to address money laundering, tax evasion, administrative corruption and gaps in the regulation of digital gambling, though no published text is yet available and the reform has not been submitted to Congress. Current indications point to possible Congressional submission around the first quarter of 2027, though this timing has not been confirmed by a primary government source. No instrument has yet changed as a result of this process, and the procedural advance to the Gabinete de Seguridad Nacional represents the most advanced stage this reform has reached to date without altering the licensing or product-classification status quo.

Not reviewedRead update

Two distinct reform tracks are advancing in parallel. SEGOB has completed internal review of a reform to the 1947 LFJS aimed at casino and betting-centre money laundering, which now awaits Gabinete de Seguridad approval before transmission to the Congreso de la Union; its stated aim is to strengthen coordination between Gobernacion, the UIF and SAT. Separately, a Chamber of Deputies initiative from Diputado Erik Isaac Morales Elvira would expand SEGOB's authority over digital games, raffles and virtual platforms, and is presented and pending committee process. Neither reform has reached the statute books, and the full text of the SEGOB-led bill is not yet public, limiting the detail available on its eventual compliance implications beyond the AML and inter-agency coordination framing already disclosed.

Not reviewedRead update

Legislative reform is proceeding on two distinct tracks moving at different speeds. SEGOB's amendment to the 1947 Federal Law of Games and Lotteries, targeting AML and tax-fraud gaps, is substantially concluded within SEGOB and is awaiting Security Cabinet review before formal submission — the more advanced and AML-focused of the two tracks. Separately, the Ley Federal de Juegos con Apuesta y Sorteos, a replacement bill filed in October 2025 by Deputy Ricardo Mejía Berdeja that would create a national gaming institute, has had its committee review deadline pushed to 31 August 2027, ahead of the 2026 World Cup, suggesting the more expansionary sports-betting modernisation agenda has been deliberately deprioritised. The mixed pace across these two tracks — a fast-moving AML/tax reform and a slow-moving structural reform — is itself the key reform-horizon signal this cycle.

Not reviewedRead update

Mexico's reform horizon is defined by three uncoordinated tracks converging on the 1947 Ley Federal de Juegos y Sorteos, none of which has been enacted. SEGOB is preparing an executive-branch technical draft to replace the statute, explicitly framed around anti-money-laundering sanctions and investment certainty; the initiative has not yet been sent to Congress. Separately, Diputado Ricardo Mejía Berdeja filed a federal bill on 7 October 2025, the Ley Federal de Juegos con Apuesta y Sorteos, which would replace the 1947 statute wholesale and create a new Instituto Nacional de Juegos y Sorteos. A third track, introduced by Dip. Alberto Martínez Urincho in the Mexico City Congress on 11 August 2026, would amend Articles 1 Bis and 3 of the LFJS to define ludopatía as a public-health disorder and impose digital-platform verification, health-warning, and predictive-betting restrictions; it must first pass local commission before being remitted to the Congreso de la Unión for potential national effect.

ProbableNot reviewed4 post-review updates · Not reviewedRead full analysis & tables →
Evidential record & source register 2 enforcement · 25 red flags · 14 sources · Expand full record

Enforcement record

What the regulator has actually done, newest first. 2 recorded events.

  1. 1 Jun 2024
    UIF · Gambling businesses linked to organised crime
    Unconfirmed
    Sources
  2. 16 Nov 2023
    SEGOB / DGJS · Permit holders (slot machines)
    Confirmed
    Sources

What gets operators fined

25 red flags (9 high, 11 medium, 3 low) and 5 controls that address them.

Controls

  • 001
    DGJS permit / entity structuring
    Establish a Mexican entity and secure a permit or attachment before operating.
    Sources
  • 002
    AML/CDD programme (LFPIORPI)
    Implement vulnerable-activity CDD, record-keeping and UIF reporting.
    Sources
  • 003
    Organised-crime counterparty diligence
    Screen counterparties/landlords against organised-crime exposure.
    Sources
  • 004
    IEPS tax-base modelling
    Model 50% IEPS on turnover vs GGR with state-tax offsets.
    Sources
  • 005
    SAT fiscal-data integration
    Build real-time data feeds and foreign-provider registration (RFC, representative).
    Sources

Worked scenarios

5 entry scenarios, each with the move we would make.

International sportsbook seeking compliant MX entry

Must form a Mexican entity and attach to a DGJS permit; absorb 50% IEPS and AML obligations.

Do this: Partner with an existing permit holder; model turnover-based IEPS before committing.

Sources

Offshore casino accepting MX players

Exposed to SAT site-blocking and tax-nexus rules under 2026 reform; criminal exposure for unlicensed activity.

Do this: Either localise via permit or geo-block MX; do not rely on grey-market tolerance.

Sources

B2B game supplier

No standalone B2B licence; supply contractually through a permit holder.

Do this: Contract with licensed operators; ensure indirect compliance and audit rights.

Sources

Land-based casino seeking online extension

Online extension permitted if permit allows; slot offerings constrained by 2023 reform.

Do this: Confirm permit scope; assess amparo exposure for expanded games.

Sources

Payments provider servicing MX gambling flows

High banking risk and AML obligations; account-freeze precedent via UIF.

Do this: Apply enhanced CDD and monitoring; segregate gambling flows.

Sources

What we looked for and could not find

Confirmed absence is a finding of its own. These are the questions we searched and could not answer from a citable source, with the searches we ran. Never behind the paywall.

Taxes. IEPS base for 2026 reform contested — turnover ('valor total de las apuestas') per legislative text/Big-Four notes vs GGR per much trade coverage. Material to effective-rate derivation. CLOSED 2026-09-20: counsel (Ramparts) confirms the base is GGR net of prizes paid.
  • searched: Mexico IEPS 2026 base apuestas GGR turnover
  • searched: IEPS juegos con apuestas base gravable 50%
  • searched: Mexico gambling tax base bets received
  • checked: gamingeminence.com
Competitive landscape. no T1/T2 published licensed-operator count from DGJS; estimate withheld.
  • searched: DGJS permisionarios count list
  • searched: Mexico number of licensed online operators DGJS
  • searched: SEGOB permit holders gambling registry
  • checked: gob.mx
Fees. application and annual fee bands rest on advisory T3 sources; no transparent DGJS fee schedule located.
  • searched: DGJS permiso application fee schedule
  • searched: Mexico gambling permit cost MXN
  • searched: SEGOB derechos permiso juegos sorteos
  • checked: gofaizen-sherle.com

Source register

Every source on a four-step tier scale. A claim is never shown at a stronger tier than the source it cites.