FPC, 05.12.2026, BB.2026.35
Facts
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland is conducting a wide-ranging investigation into an alleged fraud scheme involving loan brokerage and debt restructuring services. Several companies reportedly demanded advance payments from individuals in financial distress without subsequently providing any actual services. In this context, telephone surveillance was authorized in 2020. Its subsequent analysis revealed evidence potentially concerning A.________, who was ultimately prosecuted for professional fraud and aggravated money laundering. In July 2025, the Compulsory Measures Court authorized the use of this evidence against him as incidental findings. (consid. 2.1-2.2)
A.________ challenged this decision. He argued that the OAG had requested authorization to use the surveillance results too late and had already utilized them, notably during hearings of witnesses and persons providing information. He therefore requested that this evidence, as well as any evidence derived from it, be declared inadmissible. (consid. 2.2)
Law
According toArt. 278 CrimPC, information discovered incidentally during surveillance may be used against another person if the conditions for surveilling that person would have been met. The public prosecutor must then initiate the authorization procedure without delay. However, when incidental findings have not yet been used against the accused, a potential violation of this requirement for promptness does not necessarily render them inadmissible. (consid. 2.3-2.4.2)
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber notes that the investigation was particularly complex, involving a large number of companies, individuals, and data to be analyzed. A.________'s precise role in the organization only became sufficiently clear after an in-depth analysis of the file. The request for authorization was therefore not considered so late as to render the incidental findings inadmissible. (consid. 2.4.3-2.4.6)
Furthermore, even assuming that certain surveillance results influenced hearings prior to their authorization, their use would remain admissible underArt. 141 para. 2 CrimPC. The alleged offenses were serious, potentially involved several thousand victims and very large sums of money, and the wiretaps constituted an important element in establishing how the fraudulent system operated. (consid. 2.5.4-2.5.5)
Issue
The Appeals Chamber dismisses the appeal in its entirety. The authorization to use the incidental findings against A.________ is therefore upheld. The court costs, set at 4,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellant. (recitals 3-4)