TPF, 03.06.2026, BG.2026.13 + BG.2026.14 + BG.2026.19
Facts
Two separate criminal proceedings have been initiated. The first was opened on May 8, 2025, by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Bern (MP-BE) against C. on suspicion of fraud, or alternatively usury, and was subsequently extended in October 2025 to include suspicions of coercion and threats. (let. A)
The second proceeding began following a criminal complaint filed on June 7, 2025, in the Canton of Neuchâtel by D. against A., B., and C. regarding acts described as a "scam" related to construction work. On this basis, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Neuchâtel (MP-NE) opened an investigation on November 20, 2025, against the three defendants for fraud, usury, extortion, blackmail, and coercion. (let. B, C)
At the request of the MP-NE, the MP-BE agreed to take over the Neuchâtel proceedings via transfer of jurisdiction orders dated January 19, 2026. The defendants A., B., and C. challenged this transfer. In decisions issued in March 2026, the MP-BE confirmed its jurisdiction and the takeover of the proceedings. (let. D, E)
A., B., and C. (the appellants) filed three separate appeals against these decisions with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, seeking the annulment of the transfer of jurisdiction orders. The Court joined the three appeal proceedings to issue a single ruling. (let. F, G)
Legal Analysis
The Appeals Chamber reviews the admissibility of appeals ex officio. According to Art. 41 para. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrimPC), a party challenging the jurisdiction of an authority must first request that the authority transfer the case. The authority's decision confirming its jurisdiction may then be appealed within ten days to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, in accordance withArt. 41 para. 2 CrimPC. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
On the merits, territorial jurisdiction (ratione loci) is governed by Art. 31 CrimPC. In principle, the authority at the place where the offense was committed has jurisdiction (Art. 31 para. 1 CrimPC). In cases involving multiple participants (co-perpetrators), they are all tried by the authority prosecuting the principal offender (Art. 33 para. 1 CrimPC). If multiple co-perpetrators are involved, jurisdiction lies with the authority of the place where the first prosecution acts were undertaken (Art. 33 para. 2 CrimPC). (consid. 2.1)
In the event of concurrent offenses committed by an accused in different locations, the venue is that of the place where the most serious offense occurred. If the potential penalties are identical, jurisdiction is assigned to the authority of the place where the first prosecution acts were carried out (Art. 34 para. 1 CrimPC). When several accused persons commit different offenses together across multiple cantons, Arts. 33 and 34 CrimPC are applied in combination: all participants are prosecuted at the place where one of them committed the most serious offense. If the penalties are of equal severity, the common venue is determined by the place where the first investigative acts were undertaken for any of the offenses. "Prosecution acts" include the receipt of a complaint or the filing of a police report, demonstrating the authority's intent to act. (consid. 2.1)
Application to the specific case
The Court finds the appeals admissible. The appellants initially challenged the assumption of jurisdiction by the Bern Public Prosecutor's Office, which subsequently issued formal decisions confirming its competence. The appeals were filed within the statutory ten-day time limit. (consid. 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)
The appellants argue that the assumption of jurisdiction by the Bern Public Prosecutor's Office violates the principle of procedural unity (Art. 29 CrimPC), that a severance of the cases would be necessary (Art. 30 CrimPC), and that Arts. 33 and 34 CrimPC were misapplied. They also raise practical arguments such as the lack of connection to the Canton of Bern for A. and B., as well as complications and costs related to the language. (consid. 2)
The Court upholds the reasoning of the Bern Public Prosecutor's Office, which based its jurisdiction on Art. 34 para. 1, 2nd sentence CrimPC. In this case, the most serious offenses alleged in both cantons (fraud underArt. 146 Swiss Criminal Code and extortion underArt. 156 Swiss Criminal Code) are both punishable by a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. As the penalties are of equal severity, the determining criterion is the priority of the prosecution acts. (consid. 2.2.1, 2.2.2)
The Court notes that the initial investigative actions in the Bernese proceedings date back to March 15, 2025 (filing of a criminal complaint by E.), while those in the Neuchâtel proceedings date to June 7, 2025 (filing of the criminal complaint by D.). As the Bernese authorities undertook the first investigative steps, they have jurisdiction to try all offenses committed by the three defendants, including those committed in the canton of Neuchâtel. This joint venue applies to all co-perpetrators, even if the offense establishing Bernese jurisdiction was committed by C. alone. (consid. 2.2.2, 2.3)
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber dismisses the appeals filed by A., B., and C. It confirms the jurisdiction of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Bern to investigate and try all the facts alleged against the three defendants, including those initially prosecuted in the canton of Neuchâtel. (consid. 3 and disp. 1)
The application for legal aid filed by B. is declared moot following its withdrawal. (consid. 4 and disp. 2)
The costs of the appeal proceedings, set at a fee of CHF 3,000, are to be borne jointly and severally by the three appellants, who have been unsuccessful. (consid. 5.1, 5.2 and disp. 3)