You have been charged with a tax crime:
choosing between a plea agreement, accepting the charges, paying or going to trial takes figures, timing and a criminal defense from start to finish.

A plea agreement is a negotiation with the Prosecutor's Office: the prosecutor and the person charged hold the talks through their defense counsel, and may seek to remove aggravating circumstances or charges or to specify the classification of the conduct (Law 906, art. 350); the prosecutor must observe the directives of the Prosecutor's Office (art. 348). Accepting the charges is the acceptance of the charges on one's own initiative or by agreement, which the judge must verify as free, voluntary and spontaneous (art. 293, amended by Law 1453 of 2011). In the first there is negotiation of charges and benefits; in the second what is charged is accepted and the reduction corresponds to the stage (art. 351). Which is better depends on how strong the charges are and what can be achieved in the negotiation.

Under Law 906 of 2004: if the charges are accepted at the charging hearing, the reduction is up to one half of the imposable sentence (art. 351); if the plea agreement is made after the indictment and up to the questioning at the start of trial, the imposable sentence is reduced by one third (art. 352); and if the accused declares guilt at the start of the oral trial, the reduction is one sixth (art. 367). If there is an agreement on the facts charged and their consequences, the only reduction is the favorable change of the sentence (art. 351). Illustrative arithmetic example, not a prediction: if the imposable sentence in a case were 48 months, the maximum reduction of one half would be 24 months. The imposable sentence is defined in each case and the judge verifies the agreement; no result is guaranteed.

Plea agreements may be made from the formulation of the charges until before the indictment is filed (Law 906, art. 350), and also after the indictment and up to the questioning at the start of trial, with a smaller benefit (art. 352). The talks are held by the prosecutor and the person charged through their defense counsel. Agreements made without the assistance of defense counsel do not exist, and if the person charged disagrees with their counsel, what the person charged decides prevails (art. 354). Partial acceptance of charges is also allowed, with benefits only for what is accepted (art. 353).

Article 349 of Law 906, amended by Law 2098 of 2021, provides that if there was an increase in assets resulting from the crime, no agreement is made until the person charged or accused reimburses at least 50% of the value equivalent to the increase received and secures collection of the remainder. Whether, in a tax crime, that increase equals the evaded tax, another figure or none is a discussion assessed case by case; it should not be assumed in any direction. That is why, before opening a negotiation, we calculate what reimbursement the Prosecutor's Office could require and compare it with the cost of paying to extinguish the criminal action.

They are different paths that can be analyzed together. Paragraph 2 of articles 434A and 434B provides that the criminal action is extinguished up to two times when taxes, tax penalties and interest are paid. If the action is extinguished, there is no plea agreement to make. If the principle of opportunity has already been applied or the action has been extinguished by payment twice, payment only allows a sentence reduction of up to one half and neither extinguishes the action nor gives rise to the principle of opportunity; in that scenario payment can weigh in the negotiation, but it does not replace it. The texts do not set an express procedural deadline for paying, so it should not be assumed until when it applies: it is analyzed case by case. For detail see the page on extinction of the criminal action by payment to DIAN.

Then paragraph 2 provides that payment only allows a sentence reduction of up to one half, and neither extinguishes the action nor gives rise to the principle of opportunity. In that case the plea agreement or accepting the charges weigh more, because they are the paths left to obtain a reduction, and they can be combined with payment. The principle of opportunity is a different mechanism, regulated in Law 906 (arts. 323 and 324, amended by Law 2477 of 2025); which ground could apply to a specific tax crime is analyzed case by case and is not taken for granted.

As a general rule, no. Once the judge verifies that the acceptance of the charges is free, voluntary and spontaneous, there is no retraction, unless there is a defect of consent or a violation of fundamental guarantees (Law 906, art. 293, paragraph). In addition, agreements without the assistance of defense counsel do not exist (art. 354). That is why the calculation of each scenario and the review of the evidence should be done before accepting, not after.

Plea agreements made between the Prosecutor's Office and the person charged bind the judge, unless they breach fundamental guarantees (Law 906, art. 351). The victim must be heard and informed: the Constitutional Court declared article 348 conditionally constitutional in judgment C-516 of 2007, on that understanding. In a tax crime, who acts as the victim and what reparation is expected is reviewed in each case. Article 351 also provides that the victim may accept or not the reparations offered.

It depends on the sentence that is finally imposed and on the sentence substitutes. Article 63 of the Criminal Code allows suspension of the execution of the sentence for two to five years if the sentence imposed does not exceed four years and the other legal requirements are met. But the law excludes certain benefits and sentence substitutes for some offenses (art. 68A of the Criminal Code); whether that applies to your case is reviewed before negotiating. No result is guaranteed, which is why the negotiation is done with the question about serving the sentence already answered.

Trial should be considered when: (1) the Prosecutor's Office's evidence is weak or does not show the purpose of fraud or evasion that the offenses require; (2) the amount defined by the official assessment is debatable and, once corrected, would fall below the thresholds (1,000 SMMLV for 434A; 100 SMMLV for 434B); (3) there are administrative appeals pending or a reasonable interpretation of the law with complete and true facts and figures, so that paragraph 1 may change the picture; or (4) what the plea agreement demands, for example the reimbursement in article 349, is disproportionate to the real risk. Accepting charges means accepting criminal responsibility, with effects that must be evaluated beforehand. It is a decision made with the evidence and the figures in view, and without promising results.

It can affect timing. The paragraph added to article 83 of the Criminal Code by article 70 of Law 2277 of 2022 provides that, for the offenses of articles 402, 434A and 434B, the statute of limitations is suspended by the signing of a payment agreement, not exceeding five years. This does not replace payment nor extinguish the action by itself; it is a rule on limitation periods. How to combine the payment agreement with the criminal negotiation is evaluated in each case. See DIAN payment facility.

Ligal is a firm specialized in tax, customs and tax-criminal law. Under the direction of Juan Santiago Rodríguez Prieto, an ex-DIAN tax lawyer, together with Jeysson Pulido, accountant, and LIGAL Auditores (certified public accountants), we combine the criminal reading of the charges with the exact calculation of what is owed and handle the defense end to end: the charges, the negotiation, payment if it makes sense and, if needed, the trial. Our work is backed by 5.0 / 5 on Google with 36 reviews: https://share.google/VVzMvULrOj8Mj52Au. The team handles real cases of audits, enforced collection, and tax and tax-criminal litigation. No result is guaranteed.