FPC, 04.02.2026, RR.2025.169
Facts
On July 28, 2016, Italy (Asti Public Prosecutor’s Office) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland as part of a broad investigation into matters including fraudulent bankruptcy, money laundering, self-laundering, aggravated fraud, and tax offenses (invoices for non-existent transactions), involving significant alleged damages.
The FOJ delegated execution to the Public Prosecutor’s Office of the Canton of Ticino (MP-TI), which ordered the seizure of assets held in a bank account (account no. 1) opened in the name of MP-TI at Bank C. These assets originated from the sale of real estate previously linked to A. SA (of which B. was the sole director).
In Italy, a judgment dated October 19, 2022, convicted B. and ordered the confiscation of the assets still under seizure. Following correspondence, the Italian authority transmitted the judgment (which became final on March 4, 2023), specifying that it also ruled on the confiscations.
On April 7, 2025, the MP-TI issued a closing decision ordering the confiscation and transfer of the assets (CHF 1,326,078.73) to Italy, subject to a sharing procedure managed by the FOJ.
A. SA appealed this decision on November 6, 2025, requesting, among other things, its annulment, the rejection of the mutual assistance request, and the lifting of the seizure (or, if the account had been closed, payment of the amount with interest). The MP-TI left the matter to the court's discretion, while the FOJ requested that the appeal be dismissed.
Legal Grounds
The Criminal Appeals Chamber has jurisdiction to rule on appeals regarding mutual legal assistance (Art. 25 para. 1 IMAC in conjunction with the LOAP). Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Italy is governed primarily by conventional instruments (ECMA, Second Protocol, Swiss-Italian Agreement, CISA), as well as the Strasbourg Convention on Money Laundering (CML). The IMAC and OIMAC apply subsidiarily (principle of favor), subject to fundamental rights.
In mutual legal assistance proceedings, the deadline for appealing a final decision is 30 days from written notification (Art. 80k IMAC). Decisions are notified to the entitled party in Switzerland (Art. 80m IMAC); for a limited company (SA), notification is generally made to the legal address registered in the Commercial Register. The principle of good faith (Art. 5 para. 3 Cst.) and the duty of care of corporate bodies (Art. 717 CO) imply, in particular, the obligation to maintain a valid address and not to make oneself unreachable.
Application to the specific case
The Court held that the closing decision of April 7, 2025, was sent by registered mail to the address listed in the commercial register but was returned because the company could not be located. According to the Court, it was incumbent upon A. SA to ensure it could receive its mail (or to provide updated contact information), especially since it had long been aware that a mutual assistance procedure concerning it was underway. The fact that the situation was only "corrected" after the intervention of the commercial registry office does not shift the burden onto the MP-TI to subsequently monitor whether the company had regularized its address.
Consequence: for the purpose of calculating the time limit, the starting point remains the notification of April 7, 2025; therefore, the appeal filed on November 6, 2025, is clearly late. It is consequently inadmissible, without any substantive examination of the grievances regarding the handover to Italy.
Outcome
The appeal is declared inadmissible.
A court fee of CHF 4,000 is charged to the appellant, covered by the advance payment of CHF 6,000; the remaining balance of CHF 2,000 is to be refunded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
