TPF, 12.12.2025, RR.2025.141
Facts
The French judicial authorities have submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland in connection with criminal proceedings for aggravated money laundering. The investigation targets several individuals and legal entities, including the company A. SA. French authorities suspect that funds derived from the bribery of foreign public officials and breach of trust were routed through a Swiss bank account held by A. SA. These funds were allegedly subsequently used to acquire real estate in France.
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), responsible for executing the request, ordered Bank F. to produce documentation relating to A. SA's account dating back to January 1, 2012. In a closing decision dated August 25, 2025, the OAG authorized the transmission of these documents to France.
A. SA appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, primarily requesting that the mutual assistance request be declared inadmissible and, alternatively, that the documents to be transmitted be limited.
Legal Analysis
The Court reiterates the legal framework governing mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and France, in particular the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
A request for mutual assistance must contain a sufficient statement of facts to allow the requested State to verify that the conditions for assistance are met and that it does not constitute a fishing expedition. The requested authority relies on the statement of facts provided by the requesting State, except in cases of manifest errors or contradictions.
The jurisdiction of the requesting State is a condition for mutual assistance. However, this jurisdiction is presumed and can only be challenged if it is manifestly non-existent or arbitrarily established.
The principle of proportionality requires a link between the requested information and the proceedings abroad. The assessment of the relevance of evidence is, in principle, a matter for the requesting authority. According to the case law on potential relevance, the transmission of documents can only be refused if they are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation. In financial crime cases, the transmission of the entire banking documentation is generally permitted to allow for the reconstruction of financial flows.
Application to the case at hand
The Court examines and rejects the three grievances raised by the appellant, A. SA.
- Formal defect of the request: The Court finds that the mutual assistance request is sufficiently reasoned. It describes several suspicious transactions (real estate purchases, fund transfers) involving the appellant, which makes it possible to understand the subject of the investigation and the role attributed to it. The formal conditions are therefore met.
- Lack of jurisdiction of the French authorities: The appellant argued that the French authorities lacked jurisdiction because it had neither assets nor activities in France. The Court rejects this argument. As the investigation concerns the acquisition of real estate located in France with funds of potentially criminal origin, the jurisdiction of the French authorities is established under the principle of territoriality and does not appear arbitrary in any way.
- Violation of proportionality (fishing expedition): The Court finds that the principle of potential relevance justifies the transmission of all documentation. Since the appellant company and its beneficial owner are themselves targets of the French investigation, it is necessary for investigators to be able to reconstruct their entire financial activity. Given the nature of the offenses (money laundering, corruption), the complete transmission of documents is proportionate and essential to trace financial flows and identify all persons involved. It is therefore not a fishing expedition.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal. The OAG's decision to grant mutual assistance and transmit the banking documentation to the French authorities is upheld. The court costs, set at CHF 5,000, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
