TPF, 24.02.2026, RR.2025.151-153
Facts
In 2021, the Public Prosecutor's Office of 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland as part of a criminal investigation targeting, among others, A. for violations of gambling laws, money laundering, and participation in a criminal organization. The accused are suspected of having offered online gambling services to the Dutch market without authorization between 2007 and 2014 via companies based in Malta and Curaçao, generating illegal proceeds of over 250 million euros. A portion of these activities was allegedly sold in 2014, with A. having benefited, directly or through his company C. N.V., from an illegal gain estimated at over 37 million euros.
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Vaud (MP-VD) initiated proceedings, considering that the facts were prima facie constitutive of an offense under the Federal Act on Money Gambling (GAM) and money laundering (art. 305bis SCC). Seizure orders were issued for real estate, vehicles, a boat, and bank assets belonging to A., his partner B., and the company C. N.V., totaling 21 million euros. An initial partial closing decision granting mutual assistance was confirmed by the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCC) in January 2022, and subsequently by the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) in February 2022.
On September 19, 2025, the appellants requested that the MP-VD reconsider its decision to initiate proceedings and lift the seizures. They based their request on correspondence from the Swiss Federal Gaming Board (SFGB) dated September 2025, which indicated that the SFGB had never criminally prosecuted foreign-based online gambling operators without other ties to Switzerland. On October 3, 2025, the MP-VD rejected this request for reconsideration, leading the appellants to appeal to the Appeals Chamber of the FCC. (Facts)
Law
The Court reiterates the legal principles applicable to the appellants' grievances. First, the right to be heard (art. 29 para. 2 Cst.) requires the authority to provide reasons for its decision, even if briefly, so that the affected party can challenge it with full knowledge of the facts. The authority is not required to address every argument but must rule on the decisive points. A formal denial of justice occurs if the authority fails to rule on relevant grievances. A potential violation of the right to be heard by the lower authority may be remedied by the appellate body if the latter has full power of review and the violation is not particularly serious. (consid. 2.2.1, 2.2.2)
Second, the establishment of facts can only be challenged if they were determined in a manifestly inaccurate manner and if correcting this error could influence the outcome of the case (art. 49 let. b APA). A finding is inaccurate if the authority omitted relevant evidence, misjudged a piece of evidence, or relied on facts contradicted by the case file. (consid. 3.1)
Third, an administrative authority is obligated to consider a request for reconsideration of a final decision when circumstances have changed significantly or if the applicant invokes new and essential facts or evidence ("vrais nova") that they could not have presented previously. Reconsideration remains an exceptional measure intended to prevent the constant reopening of enforceable decisions. (consid. 4.2.1)
Fourth, in matters of mutual legal assistance, the examination of dual criminality (art. 64 IMAC) is conducted in the abstract (in abstracto). The Swiss authority only verifies whether the facts described in the request for assistance would be punishable in Switzerland if they had been committed there, without ruling on its own jurisdiction to try the case or on concrete punishability. (consid. 4.3.2)
Finally, the principle of equal treatment (art. 8 Cst.) is violated when a rule treats dissimilar situations identically or similar situations differently, without reasonable justification. (consid. 5.1)
Application to the case at hand
The Court rejects all of the appellants' grievances. Regarding the violation of the right to be heard, it finds that the MP-VD sufficiently justified its decision by explaining why the new arguments were not enough to call into question the Federal Supreme Court's case law on the application ofart. 130 LJAr. The fact that the appellants were able to challenge this reasoning demonstrates that they understood it. The MP-VD did not commit a denial of justice by failing to ask the FOJ to rule on the CFMJ's practice, as this element was not deemed relevant. (consid. 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4.2)
The grievance regarding the manifestly inaccurate establishment of facts is also dismissed. The appellants criticize the MP-VD for having described the CFMJ's practice as "potential" and "restrictive." The Court finds that the CFMJ's response, limited to the questions asked by the appellants, does not establish a general and absolute practice. Above all, the CFMJ's practice in internal administrative criminal law is not a decisive fact for the examination of dual criminality in matters of international mutual assistance, which follows its own rules. (consid. 3.1.2, 3.2)
On the merits, the Court finds that the conditions for a reconsideration are not met. The information regarding the CFMJ's practice does not constitute "true nova," as this practice dates back to 2015 and could have been invoked during previous appeals. In any event, this argument does not change the analysis of dual criminality. The Court recalls that, according to the Federal Supreme Court's case law in this same case, art. 130 LJAr applies to the operator of an illegal gaming platform accessible in Switzerland, even if that operator is located abroad. Since the examination of dual criminality is abstract, the CFMJ's concrete prosecution practice in domestic law is irrelevant. Furthermore, a connecting factor with Switzerland exists (domicile, assets), and the facts could in any case be punishable as money laundering (art. 305bis SCC). (consid. 4.2.2, 4.3.1, 4.3.2, 4.4)
Finally, the Court rejects the grievance regarding the violation of equal treatment. The appellants wrongly compare two dissimilar situations: on the one hand, an internal criminal prosecution in Switzerland for a violation of the LJAr, falling under administrative criminal law and the jurisdiction of the CFMJ; on the other hand, an international mutual assistance procedure, governed by the IMAC and falling under the jurisdiction of the mutual assistance enforcement authorities. As these two legal and institutional frameworks are different, it is logical that they lead to distinct treatments. (consid. 5.2, 5.3)
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The Court confirms the MP-VD's decision not to reconsider its decision to initiate proceedings. Consequently, the seizure measures on the appellants' property and assets are maintained. The procedural costs, set at CHF 9,000, are to be borne jointly and severally by the appellants. (Dispositif 1, 2, 4)
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
