Supreme Court backs tougher penalties for AI crimes
In a historic decision, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation (SCJN) validated this Monday the application of increased penalties for any crime committed through artificial intelligence. The resolution, approved by five votes to four, confirms a reform to the Penal Code of Quintana Roo that establishes the use of AI as a generic aggravating factor in judicial processes.
Technical details of the reform
Article 20 Bis of the Quintana Roo code stipulates that, when AI systems are used to facilitate the commission of a crime, sentences may be increased by up to an additional 50%. The standard defines AI as “the ability of technological systems to emulate human abilities such as learning, reasoning or autonomous data processing”. This conceptualization was key in the debate, since the Federal Executive had challenged the reform because it considered the terminology vague.
Minister Margarita Ríos Farjat defended the precision of the definition: “If we wait for global consensus, we will leave the victims of technological abuse unprotected.”. In contrast, Minister Alberto Pérez Dayán argued that including the term “artificial intelligence” generated legal ambiguity, proposing to focus on criminal conduct rather than on the tool used.
Legal implications and precedents
This ruling expands previous jurisprudence on AI, such as the case of Sinaloa regarding algorithmically generated sexual content. However, the Quintana Roo reform is pioneering in establishing a cross-cutting mechanism: it applies to any crime, from fraud to identity theft, as long as it involves autonomous systems. State courts must analyze case by case whether the aggravating circumstance is configured.
President Norma Piña clarified that, since the eight votes required to invalidate were not reached, the ruling only dismisses the action of the Executive without ruling on the merits. However, it sets a precedent for future legislation on digital criminal law.
Why is it relevant? This decision reflects the regulatory challenges faced with disruptive technologies. By recognizing the criminogenic potential of AI, the Court balances innovation and citizen protection, although it raises questions about how to oversee constantly evolving tools.
Share this analysis on your social networks and continue exploring our specialized content on technology legislation.




