FPC, 15.04.2026, RR.2025.143
Facts
In the context of a criminal investigation into the illegal delivery of war materiel (notably to South Sudan and Iraq) conducted against a Latvian citizen, B., the Latvian authorities requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland. This request concerned a Swiss bank account held by A. LLP (the appellant), through which funds of suspicious origin had passed. A sum of 4,076,800 USD was frozen in this account.
On August 1, 2022, the Economic Court of the Republic of Latvia issued a final confiscation order, classifying the seized funds as "assets of criminal origin" and ordering their transfer to the Latvian state budget. On February 2, 2023, Latvia requested that Switzerland recognize and enforce this decision. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), responsible for enforcement, granted the request in a closing decision dated August 27, 2025, ordering the handover of all frozen assets.
A. LLP appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. It primarily seeks the refusal of mutual assistance and the unfreezing of the funds, arguing in particular that the Latvian decision is manifestly erroneous, that the foreign proceedings violate Swiss public policy, and that the measure is disproportionate.
Law
Cooperation in mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Latvia is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and its protocols, the Convention on Laundering (CETS 141), and the Schengen Agreement (CAAS). Subsidiarity applies to the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its Ordinance (OIMAC).
Article74a IMAC constitutes the primary legal basis for the handover of assets for the purpose of confiscation. It allows for the transfer to the requesting state of seized assets (proceeds of an offense, substitute assets, etc.) based on a foreign decision, generally one that has become final. Case law requires an adequate and direct causal link between the offense and the assets, often established by a "paper trail."
The scope of review by Swiss authorities is limited. They are bound by the facts and legal assessment of the foreign decision, unless it appears "manifestly inaccurate." A full substantive review of the merits of the foreign decision is excluded.
Mutual assistance may be refused if the foreign proceedings violate fundamental principles guaranteed by the ECHR or the UN Covenant II, thereby contravening Swiss public policy (Art. 2 IMAC). Case law is restrictive regarding the standing to invoke this obstacle, particularly for legal entities. Furthermore, a procedural defect cannot be raised in mutual assistance proceedings if the party concerned has waived the right to do so through available legal remedies in the requesting state.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber examines and rejects the appellant's arguments in turn.
First, the appellant argued that the Latvian confiscation order was no longer enforceable due to a subsequent dismissal order in the criminal proceedings. The Court reiterates that it is not the role of Swiss authorities to interpret foreign decisions issued after the mutual assistance request. The request is based on an autonomous confiscation order that has been declared enforceable and has not been formally withdrawn by the requesting state.
Second, the appellant contested the link between the funds and an offense, characterizing the Latvian decision as manifestly inaccurate. The Court finds that the Latvian decision is sufficiently reasoned and not manifestly erroneous. It is based on concrete elements: the official beneficial owner of the appellant is considered a straw man for B.; financial analyses established a "paper trail" between B.'s offshore companies involved in arms trafficking and the appellant's account; and circumstantial evidence links B. to the management of the appellant. The Latvian assessment, according to which the criminal origin of the funds is "highly probable," therefore binds the Swiss authorities.
Third, the appellant alleged a violation of public policy (Art. 2 ITA) on the grounds that the Latvian proceedings had reversed the burden of proof, thereby violating the presumption of innocence. The Court leaves open the question of whether the appellant, as a legal entity, has standing to raise this grievance. It nevertheless rejects it on the merits, as the appellant should have raised this violation before the Latvian authorities. Furthermore, the Latvian decision does not reveal such a reversal; it is based on a body of evidence establishing the high probability of the criminal origin of the funds. Finally, the Court recalls that the presumption of innocence does not apply in the same way in matters of confiscation and that even Swiss law includes mechanisms for reversing the burden of proof (Art. 72 SCC) deemed compliant with the ECHR.
Fourth, the appellant considered the confiscation of all assets (USD 4,086,682.10) to be disproportionate to the value of the arms shipments mentioned (USD 3,418,700). The Court dismisses this argument, noting that the Latvian proceedings concerned a broader arms trafficking operation (including Iraq) and that much larger amounts had passed through the account. The difference between the amount initially frozen and the final amount to be handed over corresponds to the returns on the assets, which are also subject to confiscation as illicit proceeds.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber concludes that the OAG's decision to grant mutual assistance and order the handover of the funds is in accordance with the law. As no obstacles to mutual assistance were identified, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the proceedings, set at 7,000 francs, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
