Federal Supreme Court, 06.08.2026, 1C_401/2026
Facts
As part of a criminal investigation into money laundering, corruption, and other offenses, the Maltese authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on September 10, 2025. The investigation concerns a former Maltese minister and his spouse, who are suspected of having received bribes through the Swiss company A. The request sought to obtain banking documentation for an account held by A. at E.________ AG bank, as well as its 2023 tax return and the corresponding tax assessment notice. (consid. A)
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), responsible for executing the request, initiated proceedings and seized the required documents. In a closing order dated April 16, 2026, the OAG ordered the transmission of all documentation obtained. Company A.________ appealed this decision to the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), which dismissed the appeal in a ruling on July 9, 2026. (consid. B)
Company A.________ has filed a public law appeal with the Federal Supreme Court. It does not oppose the transmission in principle, but requests that the banking documentation transmitted be limited in time to the period from June 28, 2023, to January 8, 2024, arguing that the mutual assistance request only covered this period. (consid. C)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court examines the admissibility of appeals submitted to it ex officio and with full cognizance. In matters of international criminal mutual assistance, a public law appeal is only admissible if it concerns the disclosure of information from the secret sphere and involves a particularly important case, in accordance with Art. 84 para. 1 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF). (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
A case is considered particularly important, in particular, when there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad show serious deficiencies. This concept may also cover cases raising a legal issue of principle or where the lower court has deviated from established case law.Art. 84 LTF is intended to limit access to the Federal Supreme Court, and the concept of a "particularly important case" must be interpreted restrictively. It is incumbent upon the appellant to demonstrate, under penalty of inadmissibility, that these conditions are met. (consid. 1.2, 1.3)
According to case law, the principle of proportionality, in conjunction with that of potential utility, does not preclude the scope of mutual assistance from being extended beyond the strict terms of the request. Such an extension is permissible if it reasonably corresponds to the intent of the requesting state and helps avoid subsequent supplementary requests. This is particularly the case when banking relationships show a link to suspicious transactions. Case law thus allows for an extension of the period under investigation to clarify the origin or destination of suspicious funds. (consid. 2.3)
The mutual assistance authority is not required to assess evidence. Its role is limited to verifying the existence of a sufficient link between the subject of the foreign investigation and the requested information. Mutual assistance may be granted to advance an investigation, not solely to identify the proceeds of a crime. Thus, the principle of proportionality is respected if the documents transmitted are simply capable of confirming or refuting the requesting authority's suspicions. (consid. 2.4)
Application to the specific case
The appellant argues that the case is particularly important because it raises a question of principle: the discrepancy between the temporal limitation of the mutual assistance request and the scope of the transmission ordered by the OAG, which it claims violates the principles of proportionality and potential utility. It asserts that documents dated after January 8, 2024, have no potential utility for the investigation because they are unrelated to the alleged criminal mechanism, and that their transmission would amount to a "fishing expedition." (consid. 2.1)
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the FCC deemed the transmission of the entire documentation to be proportionate. This measure was intended to verify the destination of the suspicious funds and to clarify the role of the appellant company in the investigated facts, a role which the OAG described as central. The FCC noted that the consulting contract invoked to justify the payments presented numerous anomalies, which reinforced the suspicions. (consid. 2.2)
The Federal Supreme Court finds that the appellant fails to demonstrate how the FCC deviated from established case law regarding potential utility. The concrete application of this principle, which allows for a temporal extension of the documents to be transmitted in order to reconstruct financial flows and avoid supplementary requests, does not constitute a legal issue of principle. The appellant's argument that such an extension is only possible to trace the proceeds of a crime is incorrect; mutual assistance is aimed more broadly at advancing the investigation. (consid. 2.3, 2.4)
The FCC sufficiently substantiated the link between the investigated facts and the documents to be transmitted by relying on the appellant's alleged involvement in the suspicious payments. When foreign authorities seek to reconstruct criminal financial flows, case law acknowledges that they generally require the full documentation to identify all persons involved and clarify the origin and destination of the funds. The case therefore presents no particularity justifying the intervention of the Federal Supreme Court. (consid. 2.4)
Outcome
The appeal does not meet the requirements of Art. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), as it does not involve a case of particular importance. Consequently, the Federal Supreme Court declares the appeal inadmissible. The court costs, amounting to CHF 2,000, are to be borne by the appellant. (recital 3)