TPF, 15.12.2025, RR.2025.132, RR.2025.133
Facts
The judicial authorities of Vatican City have submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland in connection with criminal proceedings for embezzlement, money laundering, and other offenses related to the undervalued sale of real estate. In a supplementary request, the Vatican authorities sought the confiscation and transfer of assets from a Swiss bank account (account no. 1) held by B. Although held by B., the account was economically attributable to his father, C., one of the primary defendants in the Vatican proceedings.
On August 11, 2025, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), acting as the executing authority, ordered the transfer of these assets to the Vatican. A. (the beneficial owner) and B. (the account holder) appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting that the decision be annulled and the account seizure lifted.
Law
In the absence of a bilateral treaty, cooperation between Switzerland and the Vatican is governed by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
According toArt. 2 let. d IMAC, a request for mutual assistance is inadmissible if there are reasons to believe that the proceedings abroad suffer from serious deficiencies. This provision is intended to ensure that Switzerland does not collaborate in proceedings that fail to meet the minimum standards of a state governed by the rule of law, as defined in particular by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Refusing assistance on these grounds requires particular caution and can only be based on clear and proven circumstances of violations of fundamental procedural guarantees, such as the right to be heard.
Only the account holder (B.) has standing to appeal, not the mere beneficial owner (A.).
Application to the specific case
The appellant (B.) argues that the confiscation proceedings conducted in the Vatican violated his right to be heard, as he was never a party to them. The OAG counters that B. was aware of the proceedings and, as a nominee for his father, could not have been ignorant of the steps taken. His inaction, it argues, amounts to bad faith.
The Appeals Chamber analyzed the Vatican decisions upon which the confiscation request is based. It identified two distinct proceedings in the Vatican:
- Criminal proceedings on the merits against several defendants, including B. In this context, B. was acquitted of the money laundering charge specifically related to the bank account in question. Furthermore, this judgment did not order the confiscation of the assets in that account.
- "Asset prevention" proceedings conducted solely against C., B.'s father. It was in these proceedings that the confiscation of account no. 1, held by B., was ordered and confirmed in the final instance.
The Court notes that B., despite being the legal holder of the account subject to confiscation, was never involved in nor given the opportunity to participate in these asset prevention proceedings. Only his father, C., the beneficial owner, was a party to them.
This exclusion constitutes a clear, serious, and irreparable violation of B.'s right to be heard and his right to an adversarial process. The Vatican proceedings therefore exhibit a serious deficiency within the meaning of Art. 2 let. d IMAC, which necessitates the refusal of mutual legal assistance.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court has granted the appeal to the extent that it is admissible (solely for B., the account holder). It has set aside the OAG's decision of August 11, 2025, and ordered the release of the seizure on bank account no. 1.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
