Part of the AI Regulation News hub.
Yucatan's Decree 214/2026 writes a standalone crime of improper use of artificial intelligence software into the state penal code.
Most Latin American AI legislating happens at national level and stalls in committee. This one is a state penal code amendment that is already in force.
Bottom line: Binding. This is an enacted amendment to the Yucatan penal code, not a bill or a consultation. Its transitory article provides that it enters into force the day after publication in the state Diario Oficial.
Who this affects: Mexican criminal defence lawyers and prosecutors in Yucatan, compliance counsel at platforms and image tools reachable from Yucatan, and litigators who file evidence in Yucatan proceedings.
Issue date: Approved by the Congress of Yucatan on 22 June 2026, expedited by the Governor on 16 July 2026, and published in the Diario Oficial edition of 28 July 2026. In force the following day.
What changed: A new article 243 Bis 14 creates the offence of uso indebido de software de inteligencia artificial. AI aggravators are attached to sexual intimacy violations, false evidence, blackmail and fraud.
Analysis: The definition of AI software in article 243 Bis 14 is written broadly enough to cover ordinary editing tools with a machine learning component, and the offence turns on causing harm on publication rather than on any threshold of capability.
Primary sources: Diario Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan, 28 July 2026 (PDF)
- Instrument (EN)
- Decree 214/2026 amending the Penal Code of the State of Yucatan on stalking and offences committed through software or artificial intelligence
- Authority
- Congreso del Estado de Yucatan; promulgated by Governor Joaquin Jesus Diaz Mena
- Jurisdiction
- State of Yucatan, Mexico
- Status
- Enacted and published
- Bindingness
- Binding criminal law
- Issue date / next deadline
- Published 28 July 2026; in force the day after publication. No transition period.
- Instrument number
- Decreto 214/2026
- Core provision
- Codigo Penal del Estado de Yucatan, articulo 243 Bis 14
- Primary source
- https://www.yucatan.gob.mx/docs/diario_oficial/diarios/2026/2026-07-28_1.pdf
The new offence stands on its own
Article 243 Bis 14 is the centre of the decree. It says a person commits the offence of improper use of artificial intelligence software when that person prepares, generates or manipulates images, video, audio or any type of material, personally or through an intermediary, that causes direct or indirect harm to another person when it is disclosed, shared, distributed or published.
The penalty is six months to three years in prison plus a fine of one thousand to two thousand Unidades de Medida y Actualizacion. That is a low starting band by Mexican standards, and the article then allows both the minimum and the maximum to be increased by up to double where the offender coerces, harasses or demands something from another person under threat of releasing the material.
Public servants get a separate consequence on top of the prison term: removal from office and disqualification from holding office for one to five years.
What counts as AI software here
The decree supplies its own definition, and it is wide. Any computing system, device or program with the capacity to perform activities that conventionally require human intelligence qualifies, including natural language processing systems, machine learning, neural networks and advanced algorithms.
Nothing in that formulation limits the offence to generative models. A photo editor with a machine learning fill feature satisfies the text as written. The narrowing work is done entirely by the harm element and by the requirement that the material be disclosed, not by any property of the tool.
The aggravators matter more than the headline offence
Article 243 Bis 3, on violation of sexual intimacy, is extended so that the same penalties of three to six years apply where the intimate material is prepared, synthesised, generated, manipulated or altered by any means, expressly including artificial intelligence systems, machine learning or digital editing tools. The text reaches static and moving representations of real, simulated or synthetic sexual acts, and material where a person's face, voice or body is superimposed.
Article 243 Bis 4 gains a list of circumstances that increase the penalty by up to half, among them a victim under eighteen, three or more victims, circulation in school settings or through catalogues and repositories created for the purpose, an offender who is a student or member of school staff, use of data obtained from social networks or computer systems without authorisation, and economic gain.
Article 287 allows the penalty to be increased by up to double where evidence supplied to a proceeding was prepared, generated or manipulated with AI software. New article 306 Bis treats AI-generated false content used to intimidate, threaten or defame in order to extract money or conduct as equivalent to blackmail. A new fraud subsection increases the sentence by half where AI software is used to impersonate someone, falsify documents or generate deceptive content.
Why a fabricated evidence provision is the sleeper
Article 287 is the provision that will surprise practitioners first. It attaches a discretionary uplift of up to double to evidence already prohibited, which means the question of whether a document was machine generated becomes a live sentencing issue in ordinary criminal matters that have nothing to do with technology policy.
Anyone filing exhibits in Yucatan now has an incentive to keep provenance records for images and audio, because the aggravator arrives at the point of proof rather than at the point of creation.
The stalking half of the decree
The decree's title pairs AI with acecho, stalking, and the two halves are not connected. Article 240 Bis restates the stalking offence around persistent unconsented surveillance, pursuit, contact attempts and invasive use of personal information, and adds that the offence is prosecuted only on complaint by the victim.
That complaint requirement is a limitation, not an expansion. It does not attach to the AI offences, which are drafted without it.
What we did not verify
I opened the Diario Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan edition of 28 July 2026 in full and read Decree 214/2026 from the promulgation formula through the transitory articles, including every amended penal code article quoted above.
I did not open the legislative file, the committee dictamen, or any prior version of the bill, and I did not check whether a constitutional challenge has since been filed against the decree. I did not consult the Unidad de Medida y Actualizacion table, so I have given the fine in UMA rather than in pesos.
I will not claim that any specific product, model or service is unlawful in Yucatan. The decree describes conduct, not products, and whether a given tool's operator falls inside article 243 Bis 14 is a question the text does not answer on its face.
A state penal code can move faster than a national AI statute and bind harder. Yucatan did not build a licensing or risk regime; it attached criminal consequences to what people do with generated material, and it defined AI software broadly enough that the tool used rarely settles anything. If you advise clients who publish synthetic media touching Yucatan, the operative questions are harm on disclosure and provenance of exhibits.
Source File
https://www.yucatan.gob.mx/docs/diario_oficial/diarios/2026/2026-07-28_1.pdf
Open the Diario Oficial PDF for 28 July 2026 and confirm three things: that Decree 214/2026 begins at page 5 of that edition, that article 243 Bis 14 sets a penalty of six months to three years plus one thousand to two thousand UMA, and that the first transitory article ties entry into force to the day after publication.
Comete el delito de uso indebido de software de inteligencia artificial, la persona que elabore, genere o manipule imagenes, videos, audios, o cualquier tipo de material por si mismo o a traves de interposita persona que cause directa o indirectamente perjuicio o dano a otra persona al ser divulgados, compartidos, distribuidos, o publicados. ยท Articulo 243 Bis 14, Decreto 214/2026, Diario Oficial del Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan, 28 July 2026
FAQ
Does the decree require that the material be published before an offence is complete?
Article 243 Bis 14 ties the harm to the moment the material is disclosed, shared, distributed or published. On the text, generation alone without any of those acts does not carry the described harm element. The decree does not spell out an attempt provision, so that question falls back to the general part of the Yucatan penal code, which I did not read.
Is this a Mexican federal rule?
No. It amends the penal code of the State of Yucatan only, and it was passed by the state Congress and promulgated by the state Governor. Conduct in other Mexican states is governed by their own codes.
What is the penalty for AI-generated intimate imagery?
The decree extends the existing sexual intimacy offence in article 243 Bis 3 to synthetic material, so the same range applies: three to six years in prison and a fine of five hundred to one thousand UMA, subject to the article 243 Bis 4 aggravators that can add up to half again.
When did it take effect?
The first transitory article says the decree enters into force the day after publication in the state Diario Oficial. Publication was in the edition of 28 July 2026, which puts entry into force on 29 July 2026. There is no phase-in.
Related briefings
Sponsored Training
Practical AI training for regulated professionals, built around verification, documentation and a defensible process. See the courses.