Federal Supreme Court, 06.07.2026, 6B_934/2025
Facts
A Nigerian national, holder of an Italian residence permit and with two prior convictions in Switzerland for violations of the Narcotics Act, was convicted in the first instance for handling stolen goods, violations of the Narcotics Act, obstructing an official act, and violating a ban on entering the canton of Geneva. The sentence included a six-month custodial sentence, a monetary penalty, and a three-year expulsion order. The Geneva Court of Justice partially granted his appeal, largely upholding the first-instance judgment. (A., B.)
The alleged offenses are numerous. On January 1, 2024, the appellant was stopped in possession of cocaine, ecstasy, cannabis, a sum of money, and two pairs of AirPods stolen that same night. He claimed to have bought the headphones at a low price and that the narcotics were for personal use. On March 12, 2024, he was observed exchanging items with a third party, who immediately told the police he had bought a pellet of cocaine from him. A significant amount of cash was found on the appellant. On March 13, 2024, he was served with a ban on entering the canton of Geneva, a document he refused to sign. He was subsequently stopped in Geneva in violation of this ban on March 28 and April 9, 2024, attempting to flee from police during the second stop. (B.c., B.d., B.e., B.f.)
Before the cantonal authorities, the appellant contested most of the charges, arguing in particular that the police interviews were inadmissible due to the lack of an interpreter, that the narcotics were for personal use, that he was unaware the headphones were stolen, and that he had not understood the ban on entering the territory. He filed a criminal appeal with the Federal Supreme Court, requesting acquittal on the majority of the charges, the cancellation of his expulsion, and a suspended monetary penalty. (B.h., C.)
Law
The Federal Supreme Court reiterates the conditions for the assistance of an interpreter underArt. 68 para. 1 CrimPC. The authority conducting the proceedings must appoint an interpreter if a party does not master the language of the proceedings. An exception is provided for simple or urgent cases, provided the person consents and the officers master their language. This exception must be applied with great restraint. The principle of good faith (Art. 5 para. 3 Cst., Art. 3 para. 2 let. a CrimPC) requires that a party who believes they have been prejudiced by a procedural violation must report it without delay, or risk forfeiting their right to invoke it later. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
Regarding the assessment of evidence and the establishment of facts, the Federal Supreme Court reiterates that its power of review is limited to cases of arbitrariness (Art. 9 of the Constitution.). It only intervenes if the cantonal decision is manifestly unsustainable in its outcome. The principle of *in dubio pro reo*, as a rule regarding the assessment of evidence, does not extend beyond the prohibition of arbitrariness. (consid. 2.1, 2.3)
The offense of receiving stolen goods (Art. 160 para. 1 of the Criminal Code) is committed by anyone who acquires an item knowing or having reason to presume it was obtained through a criminal act. *Dolus eventualis* (willful blindness or recklessness) is sufficient, particularly when the circumstances of the acquisition, such as a very low price, suggest a suspicious origin. Art.172ter of the Criminal Code, which provides for a fine for property offenses involving items of low value, only applies if the value does not exceed 300 francs. (consid. 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.3)
The Federal Supreme Court then examines the conditions for discretionary expulsion (Art. 66a bis of the Criminal Code), which may be ordered for a felony or misdemeanor. This measure must respect the principle of proportionality, which requires a balancing of interests between the public interest in expulsion and the foreign national's private interest in remaining in Switzerland. Factors taken into account include the severity of the offense, the perpetrator's conduct, the duration of their stay, and the strength of their ties to Switzerland and their country of destination. (consid. 8.1)
Finally, the High Court reiterates the obligation to provide reasons for judicial decisions (Art. 112 para. 1 let. b of the Federal Supreme Court Act), which stems from the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution). The judge must set out, even briefly, the reasoning behind their decision, particularly regarding sentencing and the refusal to grant a suspended sentence, to allow for review by the appellate authority. A total lack of reasoning on an essential point constitutes a violation of the law. (consid. 7.1)
Application to the specific case
The Federal Supreme Court rejects the grievance regarding the inadmissibility of police reports. Although the application of the exception under Art. 68 para. 1, 2nd sentence of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) may be debatable given the severity of the offenses, the appellant acted in bad faith. By signing the reports on January 1st, March 12th, and March 28th, 2024, without raising any issues regarding comprehension, and only doing so subsequently, he has forfeited his right to invoke this procedural violation. (consid. 1.3)
The conviction for receiving stolen goods is upheld. The cantonal court did not act arbitrarily in finding that the appellant had purchased the AirPods for 40 CHF per pair, a negligible price compared to their actual value (over 400 CHF in total). These circumstances, combined with the late hour of the purchase, are sufficient to conclude that the appellant must have at least suspected their illicit origin (eventual intent). As the value of the goods exceeds 300 CHF, the application of Art. 172ter of the Criminal Code is excluded. (consid. 3.2.1, 3.2.2)
The convictions for violations of the Federal Act on Narcotics (LStup) are also deemed non-arbitrary. Regarding the events of January 1st, 2024, the quantity and variety of the narcotics, the location of the check, and the fact that the appellant declared he was not a user make the hypothesis of sale far more credible than that of personal consumption. For the events of March 12th, 2024, the police observation of the exchange, the buyer's statements, and the discovery of a significant and unexplained sum of money on the appellant constitute a sufficient body of evidence to support the conviction, despite the impossibility of questioning the buyer. (consid. 4.2, 4.3, 4.4)
The conviction for violating the ban on entering the canton of Geneva (Art. 119 para. 1 of the Foreign Nationals and Integration Act (LEI)) is upheld. The Federal Supreme Court finds that the ban was validly notified, as an officer attested to having translated it into English. The appellant's refusal to sign the document does not allow him to claim ignorance. Furthermore, his pretext of having an appointment with his lawyer to justify his presence in Geneva on April 9th, 2024, is not a valid justification underArt. 14 of the Criminal Code, as he should have requested a safe-conduct. (consid. 5.2, 5.3.2)
The Federal Supreme Court validates the principle of discretionary expulsion. The balancing of interests clearly weighs in favor of expulsion: the public interest is significant given the appellant's criminal record (recidivism, hard drug trafficking), while his private interest in remaining in Switzerland is virtually non-existent (recent arrival, lack of social or professional ties, family in France, residence permit in Italy). The three-year duration is deemed proportionate. (consid. 8.2)
However, the Federal Supreme Court notes that the cantonal court provided no reasoning to justify the refusal to grant a suspended sentence for the six-month custodial sentence, merely confirming the first-instance decision. This lack of reasoning constitutes a violation of the right to be heard and Art. 112 para. 3 of the Federal Supreme Court Act (LTF), preventing the Federal Supreme Court from exercising its oversight. (consid. 7.2)
Outcome
The Federal Supreme Court partially grants the appeal. It annuls the cantonal court's judgment regarding the refusal of a suspended sentence and remands the case to the previous authority to provide reasoning for its decision on this point. For the remainder, the appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible, with the convictions for receiving stolen goods, violations of the LStup, failure to comply with a regional entry ban, as well as the principle and duration of the expulsion being confirmed. (consid. 1, 9)