TF, 09.02.2026, 1C_45/2026
Facts
Latvian authorities have initiated criminal proceedings for serious money laundering and have submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland to obtain documents relating to two bank accounts held by A.________ SA and B.. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the disclosure of the requested documents. This decision was made in a context where B. had already been the subject of investigations in Kazakhstan for money laundering and embezzlement, proceedings in which he had admitted his guilt.
A.________ SA and B.________ appealed the OAG's decision to the Federal Criminal Court (FCC), which dismissed their appeal. They then appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (FSC), requesting the annulment of the decision and the refusal of mutual assistance.
Law
According toArt. 84 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (FSCA), an appeal in public law matters in the field of international mutual assistance in criminal matters is only admissible if it involves a "particularly important case." This condition is met, in particular, when there are reasons to believe that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the proceedings abroad are seriously flawed.
This concept is interpreted restrictively in order to limit access to the Federal Supreme Court. It is incumbent upon the appellants to demonstrate in detail how their case is of such importance (Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA). If this condition is not met, the Federal Supreme Court will not consider the appeal.
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court examines whether the appellants' arguments justify classifying the case as a "particularly important case."
- The appellants argue that the FSC's case law on mutual assistance requests for money laundering is heavily criticized by legal scholars. The FSC dismisses this argument, recalling that its case law, according to which it is sufficient to set out suspicious transactions without detailing the predicate offense, is consistent and well-established. The appellants provide no new evidence justifying a re-examination.
- They claim that the OAG improperly supplemented the Latvian mutual assistance request, which they argue raises a question of principle. The FSC rejects this complaint, noting that the lower court had already deemed the Latvian request sufficient in itself. Furthermore, case law authorizes Swiss authorities to supplement a request using documents in the file.
- Finally, the appellants invoke a violation of their right to be heard, arguing that the FCC failed to address their complaint regarding the OAG's failure to consider certain documents. The FSC considers that to constitute a particularly important case, such a violation must be serious. However, the appellants fail to demonstrate how it would be significant. Moreover, the FSC notes that the OAG had indeed examined the documents in question.
The Federal Supreme Court concludes that none of the arguments raised establish the existence of a particularly important case within the meaning ofArt. 84 FSCA.
Issue
The Federal Supreme Court has dismissed the appeal. The appellants are ordered to pay the court costs. The decision of the Federal Criminal Court is therefore upheld, and legal assistance to Latvia may proceed.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
