Erik Saracho Aguilar arrived in San Pancho, a town in the municipality of Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit, 25 years ago. Circumstances turned him into an environmental defender. He has fought pollution and confronted the destruction caused by an enormous real estate boom. In defending the territory, he discovered in the worst possible way that some interests will stop at nothing.
By Alexis Ortiz, Frasua Esquerra, and Nayeli Roldán (Animal Político)
Saracho believes in collective action and in defending the place where he lives. That is why he founded Alianza Jaguar in San Pancho to protect this endangered species. Together with other activists, he also helped create RedMAS, a network that brings together numerous grassroots organizations whose work ranges from running composting workshops to organizing environmental defense initiatives.
On March 11, 2026, an attack shook the community, spreading fear and uncertainty. That morning, Erik Saracho left home to take his daughter to school. As he returned, he noticed a vehicle that struck him as suspicious, although he did not think much of it at the time. As he was about to enter his house, he saw a man walking toward him.
He passed through the security gate that Mexico’s Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists had previously installed for him. Once inside, he raised his right hand, greeted the man with a “Good morning,” and at that moment the assailant pulled out a gun and opened fire. Saracho managed to raise his left hand and step backward, but one of the bullets struck him. Despite the severity of his injuries, he and his wife were able to stop the bleeding. Municipal police arrived an hour later. He was treated at the regional hospital before being transferred to a private hospital. He ultimately survived the attack.
The attempted murder came amid a broader pattern of harassment within his community, including legal intimidation and a digital smear campaign involving the dissemination of defamatory material.
Animal Político pieced together the story behind the campaign of harassment.
Legal Intimidation, Digital Harassment, and Threats
Before the assassination attempt, Saracho had already been subjected to other forms of violence aimed at systematically silencing his work as a defender of the territory and discouraging his activism against the powerful real estate interests in San Pancho.
First, he faced a series of actions that, according to his testimony, were intended to obstruct his environmental advocacy, including the use of a so-called “gag law” and the freezing of his bank accounts. He was later targeted by smear campaigns and sustained digital harassment. Eventually, the pressure extended beyond social media and reached members of his team: one of his colleagues received a phone call containing explicit threats and intimidation.
The website Vallarta en Línea published defamatory information about him. It later emerged that two individuals responsible for the site had ties to a marketing company that received municipal contracts from the Municipality of Puerto Vallarta between 2020 and 2025 totaling just over $50,000 USD, according to official information published on Mexico’s National Transparency Platform.
“They say that the greater the challenge facing your community—the greater the economic interests or the value of the natural resources involved—the higher the risk and vulnerability of being attacked,” Saracho said in an interview conducted one month after he was discharged from the hospital.
Meanwhile, local businessman Carlos Chalita, the real estate developer behind the Sunset San Pancho tourism complex, also known as Ysuri, accused Saracho of soliciting a bribe, but later retracted the allegation.
This report is part of the Digital Poachers investigation, a collaboration led by the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism (CLIP), in which Animal Político partnered with six other media outlets across Latin America, with support from the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change. Together, they have investigated who is behind the attacks against land and environmental defenders in Guatemala, Mexico, Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, and Panama.
Real Estate-Driven Environmental Destruction
In 2018, at the end of Enrique Peña Nieto’s presidential administration, Mexico’s Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) authorized the construction of 508 houses and apartment units in Bahía de Banderas, Nayarit. By the end of Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s administration, the number of authorized residential developments had reached 1,759—the highest figure recorded, representing a 246% increase in just six years.
Animal Político reviewed the Ecological Gazette, the weekly government publication listing applications for and approvals of construction projects, covering the past eight years. The review found that between 2019 and 2026, a total of 7,000 new properties were approved in Bahía de Banderas. In addition to houses and apartments, developers built 268 villas and cabins, 13 hotels, six restaurants, three sports centers, and five entertainment venues.
This unchecked expansion also unfolded as organized crime tightened its grip on the region. The Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) wields significant influence in Nayarit, a state on Mexico’s Pacific coast. According to an investigation by the U.S. Department of the Treasury made public in early 2026, the criminal organization has expanded beyond drug trafficking into sectors including real estate. The investigation resulted in sanctions against 17 companies and five individuals.
Among the companies sanctioned for alleged ties to the cartel was VG Desarrollos de la Bahía, S.A. de C.V. In 2024, before the Treasury Department’s designation, SEMARNAT had authorized the company to construct a residential building containing 95 apartments. According to records from Mexico’s Public Registry of Commerce, the company is owned by Carlos Humberto Rivera Miramontes, whom the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) described in a press release as having “a long history of collaborating with drug traffickers.”
Construction has continued despite allegations of links between some developers and organized crime. In the first five months of 2026 alone, SEMARNAT approved the construction of an additional 230 apartment units.
There has also been no meaningful progress in the investigation into the attempt on Saracho’s life. The only thing that has changed is the environmental defender’s own life. He was forced to leave his home and relocate elsewhere in Mexico in an effort to live somewhat more safely than he could in Nayarit. In the end, it was the defense of the land that displaced him—not those responsible for its destruction.
More Development, More Resistance
The people of San Pancho have never accepted surrendering their community. For more than two decades, they have organized through a range of grassroots groups brought together under the Network for the Environment and Sustainability (RedMAS) in San Pancho. They hold community assemblies to discuss local problems and work collectively to find solutions.
One of the most recent controversies involved the Ysuri development, promoted by local businessman Carlos Chalita Kaim. The tourism complex consists of six six-story buildings, parking for 63 vehicles, commercial spaces, a dining area, a swimming pool, a beachfront lounge area with sunbeds and umbrellas, and other amenities. According to the Environmental Impact Assessment filed on October 2, 2025, by Operadora de Inmueble Yuri, S.A. de C.V., the project would affect an area of 9,821 square meters.
The conflict, however, began even before the environmental permit was submitted. On September 29, 2025, residents gathered at the Entre Amigos Community Center for a public assembly to discuss the project. The meeting was attended by Bahía de Banderas Mayor Héctor Santana, along with municipal urban development officials.
During the assembly, environmental activists presented documentary evidence alleging multiple violations associated with the project: the encroachment of 58 square meters into federally protected estuary land; a proposal exceeding the legal limit on residential units by planning 74 apartments where only 50 are permitted; an insufficient number of parking spaces, with only 64 proposed in violation of local regulations; and the illegal dumping of construction debris along Federal Highway 200.
The atmosphere of hostility was further intensified by the involvement of local actors who publicly defended the development. According to Erik Saracho’s testimony, one of the most outspoken supporters during the December 29 assembly was a woman identified only as “Katy.”
Saracho says her support reflected a strategy by the developer to build local backing. According to him, the company had promised to donate approximately $5,000 USD to the local public middle school, where the woman works. This was corroborated by information that businessman Chalita Kaim himself shared with members of the community. In WhatsApp messages, he listed what he described as the company’s community outreach efforts, including the “purchase of palm trees,” a “direct donation to the school,” electrical installations, other forms of assistance, and letters of support from local residents.
Saracho says that Chalita Kaim later accused him of demanding $1 million USD and an apartment in exchange for allowing the project to proceed. The businessman also approached journalist Susana Carreño, who is widely recognized for her environmental reporting. After surviving an assassination attempt in 2022, she has been assigned security escorts under Mexico’s Protection Mechanism for Journalists and Human Rights Defenders.
The meeting took place in 2025 after Carreño reported on residents’ protests against the Ysuri development. During their conversation, Chalita asked for her “help,” spoke about the scale of his investments, and complained about opposition from environmental activists. When Carreño responded that “they’re in the right,” Chalita replied: “That’s because you don’t know Erik Saracho. He tried to extort me.”
Carreño told him that she was not the appropriate person to address such allegations. “Then you shouldn’t be talking to me,” she recalled saying. “You should be talking to the Prosecutor’s Office and filing a complaint.” She then ended the meeting.
Animal Político sought an interview with Carlos Chalita, but he declined. He responded only through WhatsApp, denying the allegations. “At no point have I been the victim of any kind of extortion by the person mentioned.”
Although Animal Político did not mention the attempt on Saracho’s life when requesting comment, Chalita added: “I have nothing to add regarding this tragic and condemnable case. I extend my support and solidarity to Mr. Saracho and his family. I hope the institutions are able to provide the justice this family deserves.”
The Digital Offensive
When efforts to suppress the territorial defense movement failed in public assemblies, the campaign shifted online. On December 9, 2025, the news website Vallarta en Línea published an article signed by “JoseR” titled, “Activist Erick Saracho Accused of Blocking Tourism Development in San Pancho,” alleging—without presenting evidence—that he was obstructing the state’s economic development to protect a supposed Airbnb rental monopoly.
At the same time, a defamatory video targeting Saracho circulated on Facebook, accompanied by hostile comments in the Facebook group “San Pancho Nayarit Comunidad Propositiva,” a community forum with 41,000 members that Saracho had co-founded with fellow resident Luis Morales.
Saracho says the digital attacks carried a significant emotional and social toll. “At first I thought they were insignificant, because if you’ve done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. But when they damage your reputation, the people around you start believing it. Even if you’re immune to that poison, it spreads to those around you. Suddenly, you find yourself hated by your own community.”
As part of this investigation, Animal Político traced the origin of the various online publications to identify those responsible. Although Facebook removed the defamatory video after users reported it as false information, investigators recovered the URL, which contained the unique numerical identifier that Facebook assigns to each profile and page.
When that identifier was entered directly into Facebook, it automatically redirected to the Vallarta en Línea page, establishing that the account had originally published the now-deleted video.
Municipal sources confirmed that the page is owned by José Reyes Burgos, the same individual who signs articles either under his full name or as “JoseR,” including the defamatory article targeting Saracho.
Reyes Burgos also appears as the listed contact for SGS Marketing Solutions in the Puerto Vallarta municipal supplier registry for the 2024–2027 period, according to official records published on Mexico’s National Transparency Platform. This is the only documented connection between Burgos and the company, whose corporate ownership records identify Estanislao Ramírez Alonso, later Abigail Jiménez Agustín, and ultimately Teresa Pérez Cholula as its owners.
According to its articles of incorporation, SGS Marketing Solutions provides marketing services, including consulting, program development, design, and the production of print, digital, and other promotional materials, either directly or through third parties.
The company was incorporated before a notary public in Puebla on February 12, 2020. Four months later, on June 25, 2020, the Puerto Vallarta municipal government—then headed by Mayor Arturo Dávalos Peña—awarded it a contract worth approximately $4,700 USD for the dissemination of official public notices.
Among the municipal financial records available online are bank account statements whose authenticity Animal Político verified with the financial institution. Those records include a payment of approximately $7,000 USD to SGS Marketing Solutions on October 21, 2025, for the production of a “Full HD video for social media”—issued two months before the defamatory video about Saracho was published.
The records also show another municipal contract worth approximately $14,800 USD awarded to SGS Marketing Solutions for the placement of banner advertisements on the Vallarta en Línea website for a 30-day period, according to documentation available through the National Transparency Platform.
The company listed a residential address in Puebla as its tax domicile. However, in Puerto Vallarta’s supplier registry it reported a different address: Francia 388, House B-1, Versalles neighborhood, Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco. That location is now occupied by a physiotherapy clinic and, according to supplier records, is also used as the business address of a law firm.
Meanwhile, Vallarta en Línea provides no staff directory, and the ownership details of its web domain have been redacted. Although the website lists an email address and telephone number, neither is currently operational.
Using a digital lookup tool, Animal Político traced the listed phone number to Cynthia Roman Staf, registered in Puerto Vallarta, Jalisco. She describes herself on Facebook as a “digital creator and blogger” whose content focuses on promoting Puerto Vallarta’s tourism and social life.
When contacted, Cynthia said she had stopped “collaborating” with Vallarta en Línea a year earlier. However, when informed that her contact information still appeared as the administrator of the Facebook page, she replied:
“I’ve tried to get them to remove me from there, but I haven’t been able to.”
At the time, Vallarta en Línea still appeared in her Facebook profile as her current workplace.
Cynthia offered to notify “the editorial staff” about the investigation but declined to provide any contact information. Minutes after the conversation ended, Vallarta en Línea deleted the defamatory article about Saracho from its website.
During the same conversation, Animal Político requested José Reyes Burgos’s contact information. Cynthia replied that she did not know him. However, she appears in videos on his YouTube channel, which were deleted only minutes after the interview. Messages sent through the Vallarta en Línea Facebook page received no response.
Weeks before the March 2026 attack on Saracho, a coordinated digital campaign against him unfolded within the San Pancho Facebook group that he and other environmental activists had created. Although the group’s administrators and moderators removed all abusive posts and comments, evidence gathered during this investigation—including archived screenshots, conversations with Erik Saracho, and testimony from moderators—indicates that the campaign sought to discredit and harass the activist while fostering a climate of hostility and sustained aggression.
For example, one surviving screenshot shows a user claiming that Saracho himself had arranged the shooting in order to gain political advantage, portraying himself as a victim and “emerge as a hero” within the community. The post dismissed the possibility that business interests were behind the attack on the grounds that they would be the obvious suspects. Other users echoed and amplified these narratives, questioning the activist instead of condemning the attempted assassination.
Asked about the campaign, the group’s administrators recalled numerous hostile posts directed at Saracho.
“They were trying to polarize public opinion,” one administrator said.
Many of the accounts followed a similar pattern, using avatars depicting animals or fruit wearing dark sunglasses. These included accounts such as TaupePear1481 and SanPanchitoLibre, the latter administered by a user identified as Denisse Perez. In none of these cases was it possible to trace additional identifying information because the profiles were restricted.
The online attacks continued even after the physical assault. One account, ScenicMango737, posted in the Facebook group that Saracho had “had himself shot” in order to portray himself as a hero and manipulate “the hippies who support him.”
Saracho and the moderators decided to remove the comments and block the offending users in order to preserve the group’s founding purpose: fostering constructive dialogue, strengthening community ties, encouraging civic participation, and promoting environmental awareness.
A dozen administrators and moderators had the authority to determine what content was acceptable, and they exercised that authority accordingly. When interviewed, they acknowledged that they had not preserved copies of the deleted comments, although they clearly remembered the coordinated online campaign.
Other members of the group also recalled the campaign, identifying accounts such as skinledguaba7207, ScenicMango737, Brightjackfruit805, TaupePear1481, and Indigoflamingo5412, all of which used cartoon-style avatars wearing sunglasses and followed a similar pattern of anonymity.
A review found that the administrators ultimately blocked 163 users. Of those, Erik Saracho said he personally identified 30 as suspected participants in the coordinated campaign. However, no surviving posts directly link those users to the harassment campaign, and their involvement remains Saracho’s suspicion rather than an established fact.
From Threats to an Assassination Attempt
Because of his activism, Erik Saracho is enrolled in Mexico’s Federal Protection Mechanism for Human Rights Defenders and Journalists, the government’s program designed to protect individuals facing threats to their lives. Among the security measures assigned to him were surveillance cameras installed outside his home and a panic button that allowed him to request immediate police assistance in an emergency.
None of those measures prevented the attack.
Two days before the shooting, Saracho’s personal assistant received an extortion call warning her: “You’ve angered some very important people. They’re following you, and they have permission to kill you.”
On Wednesday, March 11, the attack took place as the activist was returning home, when he was struck by a bullet.
On March 18, 2026, authorities announced the arrest of the alleged gunman. According to Erik Saracho, however, the person presented by prosecutors had no connection to the attack. In his own words, the arrest was carried out: “to take the pressure off the Prosecutor’s Office and distract attention from the case. … They detained someone else and wanted us to identify him as the attacker, but it wasn’t him. Still, the media were left with the impression that they had already caught the person responsible.”
Before the shooting, on January 19, 2026, Saracho had filed a formal complaint with the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Sayulita regarding the online harassment campaign. In addition to requesting an investigation, he asked authorities to preserve Meta (Facebook)’s digital evidence before it could be permanently deleted.
Judicial Harassment and the “Gag Order”
Saracho has not only faced physical attacks and online harassment. Authorities have also pursued legal actions against him that he says lacked any factual basis.
The first documented incident occurred on July 17, 2017, when the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Sayulita, headed by Francisco Javier Quiñones Reyes, summoned him for questioning. The allegation was that he had damaged a metal gate.
To defend himself, on September 1 of that year Saracho formally requested that authorities inspect the alleged crime scene using GPS equipment to record the gate’s exact coordinates.
He made the request because establishing the precise location was the only way to prove he had no connection to the alleged incident. It was also his way of asserting his fundamental right to defend himself and to demonstrate that the authorities had fabricated the accusation in an effort to intimidate him and hinder his work in the community.
The most serious episode of judicial harassment came in 2019 during the conflict surrounding the Punta Paraíso development. Carlos Lemus Mateos, legal representative of the developer Pacific Lifestyle Properties, filed a civil lawsuit against Erik Saracho and five other land defenders: Alfredo Gazra Leal, María Elvia García Palomera, Israel Landa Miranda, Indalecio Sánchez Rodríguez, and Ismael Duñalds Ventura.
The lawsuit alleged that the activists’ protests, pamphlets, and media interviews—through which they claimed the Punta Paraíso project was encroaching on federally owned land and involved acts of corruption—had seriously damaged the company’s reputation. It further argued that the activists had violated the company’s moral integrity and undermined projected sales, causing economic losses quantified at approximately $270,000 USD.
As a result of the lawsuit, Manuel Edgardo Servín Orozco, Judge of the Fourth Civil Court of Jalisco, imposed extraordinary measures aimed at silencing and punishing the activists.
First, he authorized a precautionary asset seizure, ordering the freezing of their bank accounts for the full amount claimed in the lawsuit—approximately $270,000 USD.
He also issued what became known as the “gag order,” prohibiting the activists from organizing marches or demonstrations, giving interviews, or publishing any information in print, broadcast, or electronic media alleging acts of corruption involving either the company or the Punta Paraíso project.
Saracho says the stress caused by the legal harassment and coordinated digital attacks led him to suffer a heart attack, requiring treatment at Mexico’s National Institute of Cardiology. To this day, the activists’ bank accounts remain frozen.
Now, despite being forced to leave his community, Saracho believes surviving the attack carries with it the responsibility to continue defending the country. “I don’t believe that the privilege of having survived is meant to be enjoyed as a life without responsibility toward the world around us.”
He remains convinced that opportunities still exist to improve the country’s future and rejects the idea of leaving Mexico because of his profound love for it. “Mexico is the best country in the world. That’s why we were born here, and I believe it’s worth defending.”
Digital Poachers (Taladores Digitales) is an investigative project aimed at uncovering the interests behind online smear campaigns targeting environmental activists in six Latin American countries. The project is coordinated by the Latin American Center for Investigative Journalism (CLIP) in partnership with AFP (Brazil), Colombiacheck (Colombia), Agencia Ocote (Guatemala), Contracorriente (Honduras), Animal Político and Mongabay Latam (Mexico), and Concolón (Panama). It was carried out with support from the Global Initiative for Information Integrity on Climate Change and received legal review from El Veinte.
