TPF, 28.10.2025, RR.2025.147-148
Facts
As part of an international mutual legal assistance procedure with France, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Geneva (MP-GE) ordered the seizure of assets in a bank account held by Company A. Ltd. A request to lift this seizure was rejected by the MP-GE.
Company A. Ltd and Mr. B. jointly appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC). The FCC requested that the appellants provide recent and conclusive documents attesting to the existence of Company A. Ltd as of the date the appeal was filed, as well as proof of Mr. B.'s authority to act on its behalf. The appellants also requested legal aid.
Law
According toArt. 80h let. b IMAC, any person who is personally and directly affected by a mutual assistance measure and has a legitimate interest in its cancellation or modification has standing to appeal.Art. 9a let. a OIMAC specifies that in the case of measures involving a bank account, the account holder is deemed to be personally and directly affected. Established case law, however, denies standing to the beneficial owner as long as the company holding the account exists.
In accordance with Art. 11 para. 2 and 13 APA, when an authority has doubts regarding the existence of a legal entity or the authority of its representative, it may require the production of supporting documents, and the parties are required to cooperate in the establishment of the facts; failure to provide the necessary assistance may result in the dismissal of the claims.
The granting of legal aid to a legal entity is conditional upon proof of its indigence, which implies, among other things, that the seized assets constitute its only assets.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber examined the admissibility of the appeal for each of the appellants.
Regarding Company A. Ltd, the account holder, it had standing to appeal in principle. However, despite the court's request, it failed to provide the documents required to prove its current existence and Mr. B.'s authority to represent it. The documents produced were either outdated (dating from 2021), of an authenticity deemed questionable by the court, or insufficient (a simple screenshot of an online commercial register). The FCC concluded that the appellants had failed to fulfill their duty to cooperate. The appeal by Company A. Ltd was therefore deemed inadmissible.
Regarding Mr. B., who presented himself as the beneficial owner of the assets ("my assets"), the court reiterated that established case law does not grant him standing to appeal in his own name against a mutual legal assistance measure targeting the account of an existing company. His appeal was therefore also declared inadmissible.
The application for legal aid was rejected. For the company, indigence was not proven due to the failure to produce the required financial documents. For Mr. B., although his financial situation is difficult, the manifest inadmissibility of his appeal precluded the granting of aid.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court declared the appeal inadmissible. It rejected the request for legal aid and ordered the appellants to pay court costs of CHF 500, jointly and severally.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
