Two Face Criminal Case Over Alleged Environmental Crimes in Tulum

Two people will face federal criminal proceedings over alleged environmental crimes in Tulum after a judge found enough evidence to continue a case claiming a Profepa restoration order on a property was not carried out.

The Attorney General's Office (FGR) said a federal control judge granted the "vinculación a proceso" of Montserrat "N" and Jesús "N" for their probable responsibility in crimes against environmental management and violations of the General Law of National Assets. In Mexico's accusatory system, that ruling formally binds the accused over for criminal proceedings. It is a decision that the case can move forward, and it carries no finding of guilt. Mexican authorities withhold the surnames of people under prosecution.

The case puts on record a point that matters to anyone who builds on this stretch of coast. Once Profepa, the federal environmental enforcement agency, orders corrective measures in an administrative resolution, failing to meet them can move a dispute out of the fines-and-closures track and into criminal court.

Monthly check-ins and a travel ban for Montserrat "N" and Jesús "N"

As a precautionary measure, the judge ordered both defendants to appear before the relevant authority once a month and barred them from leaving the country without judicial authorization. The court also set a three-month period for complementary investigation, during which federal prosecutors can gather additional evidence.

The FGR stated that both are presumed innocent until a competent court issues a conviction.

A Profepa restoration order at the center of the case

The investigation began with a criminal complaint filed by Profepa. According to the FGR, the complaint stated that the legal representative of a company did not comply with corrective measures set out in an administrative resolution, measures intended to restore a property where construction, works, and other activities had taken place.

The FGR's statement identified the property as being in the vicinity of Tulum. La Jornada Maya reported that it lies within the Tankah tourist complex, on the coast north of Tulum's archaeological zone.

Several basic details remain undisclosed. The FGR did not name the company, describe what was built, give the size of the property, or say when Profepa issued its resolution. Its account also refers to a single legal representative while two people now face charges, and the statement did not explain the role attributed to each.

Why unmet Profepa orders can become environmental crimes in Tulum

Mexico's Federal Penal Code classifies the failure to carry out technical, corrective, or safety measures ordered by the environmental authority as a crime against environmental management. In earlier public statements on enforcement actions in Tulum, Profepa has said the offense can carry up to four years in prison and fines of up to 3,000 days of minimum wage.

The second charge falls under the General Law of National Assets, which governs property owned by the federal government, including beaches and the federal maritime land zone along the coast. The FGR did not specify which provision of that law applies in this case.

The ruling arrives weeks after another federal action in the municipality. On October 8, the FGR searched and seized a property near Tulum following a separate Profepa complaint over the removal of vegetation and construction in a wetland with secondary mangrove. Nothing in the official statements links the two cases.

Three months for prosecutors to build the file

The complementary investigation is the stage during which prosecutors and the defense can both develop evidence before the case proceeds. When it closes, Mexican procedure allows the prosecution to file a formal accusation, request a stay, or seek dismissal.

The judge's deadline runs into early 2027. By then, federal prosecutors will have to decide whether the evidence on the unrestored property supports a formal accusation against Montserrat "N" and Jesús "N".

Should failure to comply with a Profepa restoration order be treated as a crime or as an administrative matter? Join the conversation and share your perspective with us on Instagram and Facebook at @thetulumtimes.