Reparation agreements in property crimes: when they apply and what effects they have

In cases of fraud, criminal breach of trust, unlawful dispossession and other crimes against property, the question of whether to negotiate comes up early, both for those who suffered the harm and for those facing charges. Mexico’s National Code of Criminal Procedure (Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales) offers the reparation agreement (acuerdo reparatorio) for this purpose: an alternative resolution of the proceedings that, when well structured, resolves the conflict around reparation of the harm without going to trial.

What it is and what effect it has

Article 186 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure defines it as an agreement between the victim or injured party and the accused that, once approved by the Public Prosecutor or the supervising judge (juez de control) and fulfilled on its terms, extinguishes the criminal action. Article 189 specifies that, once full compliance with the agreed obligations is approved, the judge declares the criminal action extinguished, and that decision has the effect of a final judgment. For the accused, the case ends without a conviction; for the victim, the agreed reparation becomes the core of the solution.

Which offenses qualify

Article 187 limits these agreements to three categories: offenses prosecuted upon complaint (querella), upon an equivalent requirement from the injured party, or that admit the victim’s pardon; negligent offenses; and property crimes committed without violence against persons. The last category is the most relevant in white-collar criminal practice, because it allows an agreement in property crimes even when they are prosecuted ex officio, provided there was no violence against persons.

The same article sets limits. An agreement is not available when the accused has previously entered into other agreements for acts corresponding to the same intentional offenses, in cases of domestic violence or its state equivalents, or when the accused previously breached a reparation agreement, unless acquitted. The portion of that article that excluded the mandatory pretrial detention cases of Article 167 was declared invalid by the Mexican Supreme Court, as recorded in the Official Gazette of the Federation of August 20, 2025.

Until when it can be entered into

Under Article 188, the agreement may be entered into from the filing of the criminal complaint until before the order opening trial is issued. If an order binding the accused over for trial (auto de vinculación a proceso) has already been issued, the supervising judge may, at the request of the parties, suspend the proceedings for up to thirty days so they can finalize the agreement with the support of the specialized authority. Under Article 190, the Public Prosecutor approves it during the initial investigation stage and, from the supplementary investigation onward, the supervising judge does.

Immediate or deferred performance

The parties may agree to immediate or deferred performance. If they choose deferred performance and set no deadline, Article 189 sets it at one year. While the performance period runs, the proceedings and the statute of limitations for the criminal action are suspended, so the victim does not lose ground merely through the passage of time. If the accused fails to comply without just cause, the investigation or proceedings continue as if no agreement had been made.

For those representing the victim, the design of deferred performance is the critical part of the agreement: the payment schedule, guarantees, consequences of delay and documentation of each payment. For the defense, the key is to agree to obligations the accused can actually meet, because breach not only reactivates the proceedings but also closes the door to a new agreement.

Legality controls

Before approving the agreement, the Public Prosecutor or the supervising judge must verify that the obligations are not manifestly disproportionate, that the parties negotiated on equal terms and that no one acted under intimidation, threat or coercion, as required by the second paragraph of Article 190. When the agreement is approved by the Public Prosecutor, the parties have five days to go before the supervising judge if they believe the alternative mechanism was not conducted in accordance with the law. In addition, Article 189 provides that information generated in connection with reparation agreements may not be used against the parties in the criminal proceedings, which allows them to negotiate without what is said at the table becoming evidence.

A reparation agreement is neither an automatic way out nor advisable in every case. Its usefulness depends on the strength of the charges, the real ability to pay and the guarantees that can be agreed. Assessing it in good time, before the order opening trial is issued, makes it possible to decide on an informed basis whether to negotiate or to litigate.

Source: Articles 186 to 190 of the National Code of Criminal Procedure (last amended by reform published on November 28, 2025).

This note is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific case.

Contact

Torre Celtis, Real de Acueducto 240, int. 52
Puerta de Hierro, 45116 Zapopan, Jalisco

33 1699 5871
marufc@maruflores.com
LinkedIn

For an initial consultation, briefly describe your matter and the stage it is at. Please do not include sensitive personal data in the form.

© 2026 María Eugenia Flores Chávez · Criminal Lawyer
Privacy notice

The data you provide in this form (name, telephone, email and the content of your message) is processed by María Eugenia Flores Chávez, with address at Torre Celtis, Real de Acueducto 240, int. 52, Puerta de Hierro, 45116 Zapopan, Jalisco, solely to respond to your request, check for possible conflicts of interest and, where applicable, begin the professional relationship. No sensitive data is collected. You may limit its use or disclosure, or exercise your ARCO rights, by writing to marufc@maruflores.com. See the full privacy notice.