New jurisprudence protects companies against excessive bank freezes
A recent jurisprudence issued by the Eleventh Collegiate Court in Civil Matters of the First Circuit establishes a key criterion for the patrimonial defense of companies: the seizure of bank accounts must be strictly limited to the amount decreed in court. Freezing the entire balance is an excessive measure that violates rights.
What did the Court decide?
The court determined that, when a provisional suspension is granted in an amparo proceeding against the seizure of bank accounts, the seizure must prevail only for the amount indicated in the judicial resolution, allowing the holder to dispose of the surplus. This applies even if the attachment was ordered by a labor authority, and even if it has already been partially executed.
What does this mean for employers?
This criterion is especially relevant for companies facing labor lawsuits with risk of execution, since:
- It avoids the total immobilization of bank accounts when the conviction is for a specific amount.
- Facilitates the partial recovery of seized funds, based on a precautionary measure.
- It does not prevent the enforcement of the judgment, since the seized amount is still secured.
- Reinforces the defense in cases where there has been no legal summons or where a third party is a stranger.
Key Recommendations
- Review the amounts seized against what is expressly stated in the resolution.
- Evaluating the merits of an amparo lawsuit to request the provisional suspension.
- Prepare evidence of the financial loss of total immobilization.
- Document any irregularities in the summons or notification.
Reminder: What is case law by reiteration?
Jurisprudence by reiteration is established when the collegiate courts of a circuit sustain the same criterion in five consecutive rulings, unanimously and without contrary decisions. They are mandatory for all federal and local judges and courts within the corresponding circuit, with the exception of the Supreme Court, other collegiate courts and regional plenary courts.
This figure guarantees legal certainty and uniformity in the interpretation of the law in similar cases. The case law discussed in this Legal Alert was published on September 26, 2025 and is binding in the First Circuit (CDMX) as of September 29, 2025.
Conclusion
This criterion is a key defense instrument to avoid disproportionate effects on business liquidity. If your company faces an attachment of accounts greater than the amount of the award or judgment, it can be challenged and limited via amparo.
At Vega, Guerrero & Asociados we help you protect your assets. Contact us to evaluate your case and take immediate action.
