TPF, 02.02.2026, RR.2025.158, RP.2025.70
Facts
As part of a criminal investigation into embezzlement and money laundering involving several individuals, including members of an alleged criminal organization, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on April 18, 2024. The request sought, among other things, banking documents related to various accounts.
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) delegated the execution of the request to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG). On September 11, 2024, the OAG opened proceedings and ordered Bank H.________ to produce documentation regarding an account held by A.________ (the appellant). The bank complied on September 24, 2024.
After reviewing the file, A.________ objected to the transmission of the documents. On October 1, 2025, the OAG issued a closing decision ordering the release of the banking documents concerning her to the Ukrainian authorities.
On October 23, 2025, A.________ appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. She requested that the decision be overturned, or alternatively, that the transmission be limited to anonymized data. She also filed a request for free legal aid. Both the OAG and the FOJ recommended that the appeal be dismissed.
Legal Analysis
The Appeals Chamber notes the legal framework applicable to mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Ukraine, which includes the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and its protocols, as well as specific conventions against corruption and money laundering. The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its ordinance (IMAO) apply on a subsidiary basis.
The Court reiterates the fundamental principles governing the handover of evidence:
- Principle of proportionality: Mutual assistance measures must be proportionate. However, assistance may only be refused if the requested documents are clearly irrelevant to the investigation and the request amounts to a "fishing expedition."
- Principle of potential relevance: The requested (Swiss) authority is not required to judge the utility or necessity of the evidence for the foreign proceedings; this assessment belongs to the requesting (Ukrainian) authority. It is sufficient that the documents are potentially relevant to the investigation. All documents that may relate to the described facts are to be transmitted, including those that could be exculpatory for the person concerned.
- Duty of cooperation of the affected party: It is the responsibility of the person opposing the transmission (in this case, the appellant) to demonstrate clearly and precisely why the documents are of no interest to the foreign investigation. If they fail to do so with sufficient justification during the execution phase, they are precluded from raising these objections later.
- Role of the mutual assistance judge: The Swiss judge is bound by the statement of facts in the request for assistance, unless it contains manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions. It is not the judge's role to rule on guilt or to assess the evidence.
Regarding free legal aid (art. 65 PA), it is granted if the party is indigent and if their claims are not devoid of any chance of success. Claims are considered as such when the chances of winning are significantly lower than the risks of losing.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber first examines the arguments of the appellant, who denies any link between her activities and the facts under investigation in Ukraine, asserting that her actions were lawful and that the NABU's suspicions are unfounded.
The Court then analyzed the content of the Ukrainian mutual assistance request. It describes a complex scheme involving a criminal organization that allegedly embezzled funds from Ukrainian state-owned enterprises. These funds were reportedly laundered through a network of shell companies in Switzerland and abroad. The request specifically outlines the suspicions against the appellant: she was allegedly tasked with developing a money laundering plan and founded the company I.________ SA in Switzerland in 2023, likely on behalf of one of the organization's leaders, in order to legitimize assets of criminal origin.
The Court finds that the bank documents seized from the appellant's account corroborate the potential relevance of the request. Indeed, they reveal:
- Financial flows between the appellant's private account and companies linked to the case (I.________ SA and D.________ DMCC).
- Significant payments (over 80,000 CHF), some of which were explicitly intended for the "operational needs" of I.________ SA.
- Large cash deposits and withdrawals (approximately 45,000 CHF), which the appellant justified as being for the company's needs.
- The fact that the bank itself terminated the business relationship after requesting clarification on these transactions and considering a report regarding money laundering.
In light of these elements, the Court deems the documents potentially useful for the Ukrainian investigation. They may help reconstruct financial flows, clarify the role of the appellant and other individuals, and confirm or refute the suspicions. The connection between the documents and the investigation is therefore sufficient.
The Court rejects the appellant's argument that her activities were lawful, reiterating that it is not the role of the mutual assistance judge to rule on the merits of the case. Likewise, the request for anonymization is dismissed, as in a money laundering investigation, the complete traceability of funds is essential. Finally, the period covered by the documents (January 2023 - May 2024) is deemed proportionate, as it corresponds to the period of activity of the company I.________ SA, which was created in 2023 and is suspected of being a money laundering vehicle.
The principle of proportionality is therefore not violated.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed in its entirety. The Complaints Chamber confirms the OAG's decision to order the transmission of the appellant's bank documents to the Ukrainian authorities.
The request for free legal aid is also rejected. The Court considers that, in view of the reasoning above, the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset.
The costs of the proceedings, set at 5,000 Swiss francs, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
