Swiss Federal Supreme Court, 30.04.2026, 1C_213/2026
Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen is conducting a criminal investigation into A., a Swiss national residing in Liechtenstein, for various economic offenses, including repeated fraud. He is suspected, in particular, of having fraudulently obtained a transfer of 100,000 euros to a Liechtenstein bank account held by the company D. AG.
As part of this investigation, the St. Gallen Public Prosecutor's Office obtained documents relating to this account from the Liechtenstein authorities through international mutual legal assistance. Based on the information contained in the Swiss request, the Liechtenstein judicial authorities opened their own proceedings against A.________ for money laundering.
Subsequently, the Liechtenstein authorities submitted their own request for mutual assistance to Switzerland, seeking information on the status of the Swiss proceedings against A.________, the analysis of the previously transmitted bank documents, and the existence of a link between the transferred funds (notably the 100,000 euros) and the offenses being prosecuted in Switzerland.
The St. Gallen Public Prosecutor's Office decided to grant the request and transmit the following information: the Swiss investigation is still ongoing, the account statements have been reviewed but have not been the subject of a formal analysis report, and the 100,000 euro transfer was indeed identified in the account of D.________ AG.
A.________ appealed this decision to transmit information to the Complaints Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, which ruled his appeal inadmissible. A.________ then brought the case before the Federal Supreme Court, requesting the annulment of the inadmissibility ruling.
Legal Analysis
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the strict admissibility requirements for appeals in matters of international mutual legal assistance in criminal cases, as set out inArticle 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA). For the Federal Supreme Court to hear a case, two cumulative conditions must be met:
- The contested decision must concern the transmission of information protected by confidentiality.
- It must be a "particularly important case."
A case is considered "particularly important" (Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA) if, for example, there are grounds to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated, that the foreign proceedings suffer from serious defects, or if the appeal raises a legal issue of principle. This concept is intended to limit access to the Federal Supreme Court, which has broad discretionary power. In the area of "minor mutual assistance" (transmission of information), a particularly important case is only admitted in exceptional circumstances. It is the appellant's responsibility to demonstrate in detail that these conditions are met.
The Federal Supreme Court also examines the standing of the person being prosecuted abroad, which is governed byArt. 21 para. 3 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). This provision limits the right of appeal to mutual assistance measures that affect the person "personally and directly," which is typically the case when a coercive measure (search, arrest) is ordered against them.
Application to the present case
The Federal Supreme Court analyzed the appellant's arguments in light of the requirements of Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). The appellant argued that the decision of inadmissibility created a legal vacuum and violated his right to effective legal protection (Art. 29 and 29a of the Federal Constitution). He contended that since the company holding the account (D.________ AG) had been liquidated, no one other than himself, as the beneficial owner, could oppose the transmission of information, and that denying him standing to appeal effectively deprived him of any legal recourse.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected this argument for several reasons. First, it noted that the case at hand does not concern the collection of bank documents, but rather the transmission of information regarding an ongoing proceeding. The bank documents themselves were already in the possession of the Liechtenstein authorities.
Second, the mutual assistance measure granted by the St. Gallen Public Prosecutor's Office—informing about the status of a proceeding, confirming the examination of documents, and verifying the reality of a transaction—does not constitute a coercive measure directed personally and directly against the appellant within the meaning of Art. 21 para. 3 of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (EIMP). Consequently, the appellant is not directly affected by this measure in a way that would grant him standing to appeal.
Third, the Federal Supreme Court pointed out that the appellant failed to demonstrate before the lower court that he was the beneficial owner of the liquidated company. His status as a defendant in the Liechtenstein proceedings alone is insufficient to establish a right to appeal against this type of information transmission.
In conclusion, the Federal Supreme Court found no evidence of a serious violation of fundamental procedural rights. The case does not raise any legal issues of principle and is not of particular importance. The requirements of Art. 84 LTF are therefore not met.
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, as the requirements of Art. 84 LTF were not met, specifically due to the absence of a "particularly important case." The legal costs are to be borne by the appellant, A.________.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
