FPC, 06.16.2026, RR.2025.150
Facts
On January 14, 2025, Ukraine requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland in criminal proceedings against B., who is suspected of fraud, money laundering, illicit enrichment, and corruption, among other offenses. The Ukrainian authorities requested the transmission of banking documentation for an account held in Switzerland by A., an associate of B.'s son, as well as the freezing of his assets. Two payments from B., in the amounts of USD 20,000 and USD 575,000, had been credited to this account (recital 4.3.5-4.4).
The OAG ordered the account to be frozen and subsequently ordered the production of the banking documentation. In a closing decision dated September 10, 2025, it authorized the transmission of documents relating to the account for the period in question and maintained the seizure of the assets. A. appealed to the FPC, requesting the cancellation of the transmission and the total or partial lifting of the seizure (recital 1.4-1.6).
Law
The right to be heard, guaranteed byArt. 29 para. 2 of the Federal Constitution , includes the obligation for the authority to provide reasons for its decision. The reasoning is sufficient when it allows the individual to understand the essential grounds for the decision and to challenge it effectively; the authority is not required to address every argument (recital 2.1.1-2.1.2).
In matters of mutual assistance, the Swiss authorities are not required to examine the guilt of the person concerned: the foreign authority must only set out its suspicions without having to prove them. Exculpatory arguments are a matter for the criminal court of the requesting state (recital 3.1-3.2).
The principle of proportionality, based onArt. 63 para. 1 of the IMAC, requires a sufficient connection between the documents transmitted and the foreign investigation. However, mutual assistance can only be refused if the information is manifestly unrelated to the offense. The principle of potential utility allows, in particular, for the transmission of extensive banking documentation in order to reconstruct financial flows and identify any as-yet-unknown transactions (recital 4.3.1-4.3.2).
The fact that the account holder is not themselves being prosecuted abroad does not preclude mutual assistance when their assets or documents have an objective link to the facts under investigation (recital 4.3.3-4.3.4).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Criminal Court found that the OAG’s reasoning was sufficient: the Ukrainian request explicitly sought the complete documentation for A.’s account, meaning the latter could understand the grounds for the transfer. The complaint regarding a violation of the right to be heard is therefore dismissed (consid. 2.2).
A.’s explanations that the payments from B. corresponded to a lawful business transaction are not decisive in mutual assistance proceedings. It is for the Ukrainian authorities to determine whether the transactions are lawful or linked to the offenses under investigation (consid. 3.1-3.2).
The two payments made by B. are sufficient to establish an objective link to A.’s account. The other transactions may also be relevant for establishing a complete picture of the financial flows and confirming or refuting the existence of a money laundering scheme. The transfer of the complete documentation therefore respects the principle of proportionality (consid. 4.4).
The seizure is also maintained, as the blocked assets are prima facie likely to constitute the proceeds of an offense and their amount does not exceed the alleged criminal proceeds (consid. 4.5-4.6.4).
Finally, a request for mutual assistance must be executed as long as it has not been formally withdrawn by the requesting state. The fact that A. is not being prosecuted in Ukraine or that the proceedings against B. may have evolved does not change this (consid. 5.1-5.2).
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal in its entirety. The transfer of bank documents and the maintenance of the seizure are confirmed. A court fee of CHF 5,000 is charged to the appellant (consid. 6-7).