Article 43 Bis: the PUI penalty regime, in detail
Article 43 Bis of the LGMDFP is the rule that gives the PUI obligation real enforceability: it penalises with 10,000 to 20,000 UMA per infraction. We analyse its content for a professional audience: how it converts to pesos at the current UMA value, what the phrase per infraction means legally, how it relates to the Article 12 Bis duty, and what exposure considerations a compliance team should weigh.
The provision’s role within the law
Article 43 Bis performs the technical function of closing the regulatory loop: Article 12 Bis imposes the duty to record identity and interconnect to the Single Identity Platform, and 43 Bis sets the legal consequence for those who fail to do so. Without a penalty rule, the lodging obligation would be a duty without coercive force. Article 43 Bis turns that duty into an obligation whose breach carries a defined cost.
The penalty is expressed in Units of Measure and Update (UMA), not directly in pesos. The UMA is the economic reference that replaced the minimum wage as the basis for calculating fines and obligations in Mexico, and it is updated each year. Expressing the fine in UMA keeps its real value current without the need to periodically amend the law.
The range provided is 10,000 to 20,000 UMA per infraction. This is an administrative penalty of high value, consistent with the gravity of the legal interest protected by the law —the location of missing persons— and with the legislator’s intent to ensure effective coverage of the national register of lodgings.
How it converts to pesos (2026 UMA value)
The fine is obtained by multiplying the applicable UMA by the current daily UMA value. With the 2026 UMA set at $117.31 MXN, the range converts as follows.
Lower bound
10,000 UMA × $117.31 = $1,173,100 MXN. This is the minimum fine the provision contemplates per infraction.
Upper bound
20,000 UMA × $117.31 = $2,346,200 MXN. This is the ceiling of the range per infraction.
Update variable
The UMA is adjusted each year. When its value changes, the peso amount is recalculated automatically without amending the law.
Determination within the range
The exact point between the minimum and maximum is set by the authority, weighing the gravity and circumstances of the case.
No size-based mitigation
The legal range is the same for any establishment. The law does not automatically reduce the fine for being a small lodging.
Administrative nature
It is an administrative penalty, independent of any other liability the facts might give rise to.
The legal scope of the phrase “per infraction”
The most relevant precision for a risk analysis is that the range operates per infraction and not as a single penalty of fixed periodicity. This means the unit of account for the penalty is each breach, not the annual period or the establishment considered as a whole. The consequence is that potential exposure can multiply if several distinct infringing conducts concur.
Determining what constitutes an individualised infraction falls to the authority when applying the provision, and will depend on the criteria that consolidate in administrative practice and, where applicable, in judicial review. For a compliance team, however, the prudent reading is to assume that the “per infraction” character raises the ceiling of exposure above a single fine, and to design controls so that no infringing conduct exists, rather than to budget for paying one.
This characterisation also shifts the cost-benefit analysis. Against a risk whose lower bound already exceeds a million pesos and whose ceiling multiplies per infraction, the cost of compliance controls becomes marginal in comparative terms. Compliance stops being analysed as an expense and becomes the management of a risk of potentially catastrophic magnitude for a small or mid-sized operator.
From breach to penalty: the logical chain
How the substantive duty connects to its economic consequence.
- A duty exists (Art. 12 Bis)The lodging must record each guest’s identity and remain interconnected to the PUI.
- A breach is verifiedFailing to record, recording deficiently, or being unable to respond to a query constitutes the infringing conduct.
- The range applies (Art. 43 Bis)The authority sets the fine between 10,000 and 20,000 UMA based on the gravity and circumstances of the case.
- It converts to pesosThe number of UMA is multiplied by the current UMA value to obtain the enforceable amount.
What a compliance team should retain
Four operational conclusions from the penalty regime.
High amount
Between $1,173,100 and $2,346,200 MXN at the 2026 UMA. The legal minimum is already substantial.
Per infraction
It is not a single annual fine; each breach can count independently.
Federal and public order
It derives from the LGMDFP. Its application falls to the interior and search authority.
Avoidable with control
Exposure is neutralised with orderly identity capture and readiness to respond to queries.
Official sources
General Law on the Forced Disappearance of Persons, Disappearance Committed by Private Parties, and of the National Search System (LGMDFP), Article 43 Bis (penalty regime). Provision added by the reform published in the Diario Oficial de la Federación in July 2025.
Value of the Unit of Measure and Update (UMA): published annually by the National Institute of Statistics and Geography (INEGI) in the Diario Oficial de la Federación. For 2026 the daily value used is $117.31 MXN; the peso equivalences in this analysis are calculated with that value.
Competent bodies in search matters: Ministry of the Interior (SEGOB), National Population Registry (RENAPO) and National Search Commission (CNB).