The director of the National Commission of Physical Culture and Sports (Conade), Rommel Pachecofaces increasing public scrutiny after it was revealed that he allegedly hid properties, manipulated asset declarations and rented properties without reporting the income that he obtained for the rental between 2020 and 2025.
An investigation of Processbased on official documents, interviews and public records, exposes a network of undeclared assetsirregularities and a alleged dispossession against his ex-partner, the Olympic medalist Paola Espinosa.
The inconsistencies not only compromise the image of the exclavadist and former federal representative, but it is likely that they could represent violations of the General Law of Administrative Responsibilitieswhich requires total truthfulness on the part of public servants.
San Crisanto: the house that did not declare and that rents in cash
One of the most visible anomalies arises in Saint Chrysanthemuma community located on the coast of Yucatán, about 77 kilometers from Mérida.
In his financial statements, Pacheco claims to have a 180 m² house and a land of 1,231 m²purchased from the local ejido. However, the Public Property Registry reveals a different reality:
- The supposed terrain is actually a house located on 25th Street —known as Casa Chukum—and rent as vacation property.
- The declared “house” in reality does not exist in San Crisanto.
Local residents, real estate workers and administrators confirmed that the house belongs to Pacheco. Even the mosaic in the pool, with the figure of a diver.
A real estate agent who operates the site stated, the media reports, that payments are requested in cashwithout invoice, and with discounts for not issuing tax receipts.
Deposits are made to a company called Comercializadora Jorshapi S. de RL de CVmaking it difficult to trace the income back to the official.
His wife, the influencer Yajaira Alhely Falla Aguilarbetter known as “Lylo Four”ended up confirming the ownership Casa Chukum when publishing videos showing the interior of the property, explaining that “the house is always rented”.
There are even other videos precisely to promote it with the purpose of renting it on the Airbnb platform and also for events at the edge of the beach. However, none of this is declared, the investigation reveals.
@lylocyv Enjoy your #Christmas in the #Playa #SanCrisanto You can find this property at #airbnb ♬ original sound – Lylo Fa
The Paola Espinosa case: alleged dispossession, pressure and a hidden story
The episode highlighted because it involves an alleged dispossession is a property in the Montecristo Subdivisionone of the most exclusive residential areas of Mérida.
What the documents say
According to folio 1078459 of the Public Registry:
- The 218 m² house was purchased in 2013 by Paola Espinosa and Rommel Pachecoin co-ownership.
- In 2017Pacheco acquired half of the property from Espinosa for 820 thousand pesosaccording to the public deed.
What Paola Espinosa says
The medalist, today a federal representative, maintains that:
- Ella paid practically the entire houseexcept for about 200 thousand pesos contributed by him.
- Rommel the pressed to give him the house and never paid him the amount reflected in the deed.
- Received only about 600 thousand pesos in cash, even though the house was worth between 5 million pesos at that time and 8 million pesos today, according to the valuation of an expert.
- In his words: “He took me from all the houses… I just wanted to get that problem off my back.”
TO UNDERSTAND BETTER: Rommel Pacheco, accused of taking Paola Espinosa from a house in Mérida
Espinosa also claims that Pacheco used threats related to the “law of concubinage”hinting that she would have to support him after the separation, which led her to cave under pressure.
The athlete describes the exclavadista as someone obsessed with money and power:
“He always said: ‘I want to be governor, because there is a lot of stealing there… from someone else stealing to me stealing it’”
READ THIS PROFILE: Who is Rommel Pacheco? From diver to politician
A long list of omitted properties
Review of the asset statements shows a consistent pattern: concealment, omissions and discrepanciesindicates the report.
Houses and land not declared or poorly reported
Among the goods that Pacheco did not include In his statements from 2020 and 2021 (when he was a lieutenant of the Sedena) there are:
- Land in Cholul of 1,394 m² (2006).
- Land in Progress of 10,075 m² (2020).
- House in San Esteban acquired in 2019 for 1.5 million.
- House in San Pedro Cholul (2020) of 180 m².
These four properties were made public until he assumed the direction of Conade.
The house in the Center of Mérida
In April 2021, seven days after getting married, bought a house on 76th street 580 thousand pesosbut declared his marital status as single.
La Ceiba Golf Club
In 2022, when He was a federal deputy for the PAN, before going to Morenaacquired, together with his wife, a property of 1,095 m² by five million of pesos. Although you are not required to make it public because it is co-owned under separation of assets, its inclusion helps to dimension the magnitude of your assets.
Additional goods
Rommel Aghmed Pacheco Marrufo has other properties that do appear in his assets statements:
- Department in Mexico City (70 m²).
- old house in Tixkokob (218 m²).
All purchases, according to him, were paid in cash.
Asset statements reviewed for investigation
Appointment process cinco revised financial statements that Rommel Pacheco presented:
- 3 of them —an initial, a modification and a final between 2020 and 2021— as lieutenant of the Secretariat of National Defense (Sedena).
- 2 more—an initial one and a modification one from October 2024 to May 2025— as holder of the Conade.
The work signed by Beatriz Pereyra states that “after a search in the Public Registry of Property and Commerce of the state of Yucatán. (…) The information available does not correspond to what was declared”.
Political impact and official silence
The irregularities in the asset declarations are not minor. Any official who hides assets or declares false information may face administrative and criminal sanctions.
Process indicates that he asked Pacheco about the inconsistencies, who responded in writing only that “all your assets are declared in accordance with the law” and that the information is free to consult, without providing further clarifications.
Conclusions: a heritage under the magnifying glass
The review of documents, testimonies and records paints a complex picture:
- Hidden properties.
- Misrepresented asset declarations.
- Income without reporting income.
- A direct accusation of alleged dispossession and abuse by Paola Espinosa.
- Inconsistency between what was said, what was declared and what was recorded.