FPC, 22.01.2026, BB.2025.36, BB.2025.38
Facts
In criminal proceedings for the bribery of foreign public officials and aggravated money laundering, the OAG commissioned the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (SICL) to provide an opinion on Kuwaiti law. Employee F., who is typically responsible for this jurisdiction, reported a potential conflict of interest due to a previous mandate involving the spouse of the person concerned. The expert report was subsequently assigned to G. The defendants, A. and B., later discovered that two sources used by G. had previously been highlighted by F. They argued that F. may have influenced the expert report and requested the recusal of G. and the SICL, as well as the removal of the legal opinion from the case file (recitals 4.1, 4.3).
The recusal requests, filed seven days after the transmission of the sources revealing F.'s involvement, were considered to have been submitted "without delay" within the meaning ofArt. 58 para. 1 CrimPC. The appeals were also filed within the statutory time limit. The two cases, based on the same set of facts and the same grievances, were joined (recitals 1.2-1.4, 2.1-2.2).
Law
The grounds for recusal underArt. 56 CrimPC apply to experts pursuant to Art. 183 para. 3 CrimPC. Recusal does not require proof of actual bias; it is sufficient that objectively ascertainable circumstances are capable of creating an appearance of prejudice or a legitimate doubt regarding the expert's impartiality. Conversely, a party's subjective impressions are insufficient. The mere fact that an expert has a professional connection with another participant or is aware of their work does not automatically justify recusal (recitals 4.2.1-4.2.2).
Furthermore, the SICL is an autonomous public law institution tasked, among other things, with providing opinions on foreign law. Due to its status and organization, its independence and impartiality are in principle guaranteed (recital 4.2.3).
Application to the specific case
According to the FPC, the transmission of documentation by F. to G. and the highlights appearing on two articles do not support the conclusion of undue influence. The sources were scientific, G. remained free to evaluate them critically, and the highlights had been made several months before the OAG's mandate. No evidence demonstrated that F. had participated in drafting the opinion or directed G.'s analysis. The speed at which the seven-page expert report was drafted did not constitute an indication of bias either (recitals 4.3-4.4).
Criticisms regarding the lack of transparency, the right to be heard, the choice of questions, and the appointment of the expert primarily concerned the OAG's conduct of the proceedings, rather than G.'s impartiality. No independent grounds justified the recusal of the SICL either (recitals 4.5-4.6).
Issue
The recusal requests regarding G. and the ISDC are dismissed, and the expert report remains in the file. However, the Federal Criminal Court notes that the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) lacked the authority to rule on the recusal itself and should have referred the request to the Appeals Chamber. This procedural error did not prejudice the appellants, as the Court was able to review the matter itself. The appeals are dismissed, and the costs of CHF 3,000 are split equally between the appellants (recitals 3.1-3.4, 4.7, 5, 6.1-6.2).