Facts
As part of a mutual legal assistance procedure with Ukraine, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the production of banking documents and the continued seizure of a bank account belonging to A., which holds assets totaling nearly 2.8 million USD. A. appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. The Court required the appellant to pay an advance on costs of CHF 7,000. The appellant then requested an extension of the payment deadline and a partial release of the seizure on his account in the amount of CHF 7,000 in order to pay this advance.
Law
Pursuant toArt. 63 para. 4 APA, the appellate authority shall require the appellant to pay an advance on costs equivalent to the estimated procedural costs, set a payment deadline, and warn them that failure to pay will result in the appeal not being considered; however, for specific reasons, it may waive all or part of the advance. According to the case law of the Federal Criminal Court, assets seized in the context of mutual assistance proceedings, particularly when they are suspected of being of illicit origin, cannot in principle be used to finance the proceedings (advance on costs or legal fees), due to a lack of legal basis and to avoid prejudging the outcome of the dispute regarding the seizure. The possibility of requesting legal aid remains reserved: a party lacking sufficient resources, whose claims do not appear doomed to failure from the outset, may be exempted from paying costs and may be assigned a lawyer if the protection of their rights so requires (Art. 65 APA ; Art. 29 para. 3 Cst).
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber notes that the Ukrainian mutual assistance request is based on suspicions of fraud and money laundering. The appellant's account is suspected of having received funds of criminal origin for a total amount far exceeding the sum initially targeted by the seizure request. Applying its case law, the Court considers that the seized assets, being potentially of illicit origin, cannot be used to pay the advance on costs. Furthermore, the appeal on the merits concerns the very amount of the seizure; authorizing a withdrawal would amount to partially prejudging the outcome of the case. The request for partial release of the seizure is therefore rejected. On the other hand, the Court grants the request for an extension of the deadline for payment of the advance on costs. It reminds the appellant that if payment is not made within the new deadline, his appeal will be declared inadmissible.
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber rejects the request for partial release of the seizure. It grants the request for an extension of the deadline and sets a new deadline of November 7, 2025, for the payment of the advance on costs of CHF 7,000.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
