TPF, 16.02.2026, BG.2025.85
Facts
A series of robberies and attempted robberies occurred at several hotels in the cantons of Vaud, Neuchâtel, Valais, and Bern between late 2023 and April 2025. On April 16, 2025, three primary suspects, C., E., and F., were arrested in Valais and handed over to the Vaud authorities. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Vaud (MP-VD) took charge of the pre-trial detention and conducted a centralized investigation.
During the investigation, the Public Prosecutor's Offices of Neuchâtel (MP-NE) and Bern (MP-BE) requested that the MP-VD take over their respective proceedings, which the latter initially refused, deeming the request premature. After several months of investigation and further questioning of the defendants in September and October 2025, the MP-VD determined it had a comprehensive overview. It then initiated a venue determination procedure, arguing that jurisdiction belonged to the canton of Bern, the site of the first robbery committed on February 19, 2025.
The MP-BE opposed this view, arguing that by conducting an in-depth investigation for several months, the MP-VD had tacitly accepted jurisdiction through its actions. The MP-NE and MP-VS supported the MP-VD's position. Faced with this persistent disagreement, the MP-VD referred the matter to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court to resolve the conflict of venue.
Legal Analysis
The Court reiterated the rules of territorial jurisdiction in criminal matters (Art. 31 CrimPC). In cases of multiple offenses committed by several co-perpetrators in different locations, jurisdiction is assigned to the authority of the place where the most serious offense was committed. If the offenses are of equal severity, the venue is the place where the first investigative acts were undertaken (forum praeventionis, Art. 33 para. 2 and 34 para. 1 CrimPC).
The Court then examined the concept of "collective proceedings" (Sammelverfahren), as recommended by the Swiss Conference of Public Prosecutors. In cases of serial offenses, the canton that carries out the arrest and orders detention is required to conduct a comprehensive investigation to clarify all the facts before the venue is definitively established (Art. 42 para. 2 CrimPC). Conducting such proceedings, even if it involves significant investigative acts, does not constitute a tacit acceptance of jurisdiction.
Finally, the Court sets outArt. 40 para. 3 CrimPC, which allows for a departure from the legal venue for relevant reasons, particularly when the "preponderant part of the criminal activity" is located in another canton, or for reasons of procedural economy and expediency. This derogation remains an exception and can only be granted in favor of a canton that has a territorial connection criterion.
Application to the specific case
The Court first rejects the argument of the Bernese Public Prosecutor's Office regarding the tacit recognition of the venue. It considers that the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office acted in accordance with the practice of "collective proceedings." By conducting investigations into all the facts, including those committed in Bern, before raising the issue of venue, the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office merely followed the appropriate procedure for complex, multi-cantonal cases. The fact that it waited for the hearings at the end of September/beginning of October 2025 to have a clear overview is deemed legitimate.
On the merits, the Court determines the legal venue. As the most serious offenses are the robberies, which are of equivalent gravity, jurisdiction should fall to the canton of Bern in application of the forum praeventionis, since the first investigative acts for a robbery were carried out there.
However, the Court decides to make use of the derogation clause of Art. 40 para. 3 CrimPC. It notes that the vast majority of the offenses were committed in French-speaking Switzerland (Vaud, Valais, Neuchâtel), while only two occurrences took place on Bernese territory. The "preponderant part of the criminal activity" is therefore clearly located in the canton of Vaud and its surroundings. Furthermore, reasons of procedural economy and expediency argue in favor of maintaining the proceedings in the canton of Vaud, where the investigation is already well advanced and where certain facts are precisely established.
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court rejects the request of the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office. It declares the criminal authorities of the canton of Vaud solely competent to prosecute and judge all the offenses charged against C., E., and F. The decision is rendered without costs.