Executive session · All sectors
To fulfill isn't enough: how to prove that your company is protected
There's an enormous difference between good intentions and document and evidence.
▶️
Video soon
Available soon.
Most Mexican companies believe they are complying with them and they are likely to be right about them as they have good intentions. The problem is that good intentions isn't what an authority wants when they come to review them.
In July 2025, LFPIORPI have had a reform published in the FOD that has expanded article 18 from 6 to 11 fractions of obligations. No more to identify the client: now demand Documented risk assessment with risk-based approach, internal policy manual with PEPs identification, continuous automated monitoring, annual audit and required registration of the controller recipient The reform was not gradual - it was a system shift.
A PDF saved in a folder has no probative value without verifiable integrity. INE does not meet the 10-year maintenance standard of Article 18. "I accept the terms" The reform does not only demand compliance with and demand that it be shown how, how and with whom.
That session works with three scenarios that any company can face: the client who signed and now denies it, the authority that asks to rebuild an operation from three years ago, and the most common case - have documents but have no justifiable evidence.
Solutions JAAK for this topic
What you describe at this session, JAAK It's been solved.
Digital auditable file with NOM-151
It builds evidence that challenges an audit: verified identity, documentary integrity, time stamp and 10-year maintenance. No archives - actual evidence.
See solution →Identification of client with evidentiary validity
biometric KYC that generates evidence from high: liveness, crossing RENAPO, list PEP/SAT/OFAC and sealed file. That's exactly what the reform wants. LFPIORPI 2025.
See solution →What you'll learn in this session
- 1What exactly changed with the July 2025 LFPIORPI reform and who it applies to
- 2The legal difference between have and have evidence - and why that difference matters in an audit
- 3Who responded personally to the UIF where there is a non-compliance (as an abstract entity)
- 4What are the actual measures under article 54 and how can be reduced to 50% by regularizing before authority arrives?
- 5What happens when the client signed and now says no - and how to build the process so that that stage doesn't flourish
- 6What happens when authority asks to rebuild an operation 3 years ago and the file doesn't hold
- 7The 5 elements that turn a document into evidence: identity, integrity, temporality, conservation and traceability
Index of themes
Click a theme to expand
presenters
Dr. David Merino
Doctor of Law. Founder of Top Compliance. Consultant to the UIF, the SAT and the FGR. Took part in Mexico's fifth FATF (GAFI) evaluation round. Advisor to the Federal Congress on digitalization matters. Technical expert on the UN Independent Scientific Panel on AI.
Arianna quezada
CEO of JAAK. A 100% Mexican company specialized in digital identity, biometric monitoring, electronic signature and auditory archives.
Can you prove what you did three years ago today?
If there's an answer from I don't know about that question, the risk already exists. JAAK Building evidence from the process, and not after the problem.
Agenda a demo →