TPF, 26.02.2026, RR.2025.171
Facts
As part of a major criminal investigation, the Public Prosecutor's Office of 's-Hertogenbosch (Netherlands) requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland. The investigation concerns several individuals, including the appellant, A., for violations of Dutch gambling laws, money laundering, and participation in a criminal organization.
Between 2007 and 2014, a group of individuals is suspected of operating unlicensed online gambling services on the Dutch market via companies based in Malta and Curaçao. This activity allegedly generated illicit proceeds estimated at approximately 251 million euros. After deducting expenses, the profits were distributed to shareholders and their personal structures.
The appellant, A., is suspected of participating in this scheme as the beneficial owner of a Curaçao-based foundation (Foundation AA.), which held shares in a company (L. NV) that provided services to gambling operators. Through this arrangement, she allegedly received illicit gains estimated by the Dutch authorities at 3,210,611 euros.
Following a mutual assistance request dated May 13, 2025, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Vaud (MP-VD) conducted bank searches and ordered the seizure of the appellant's assets in Switzerland, totaling 3,661,732.61 euros. On October 3, 2025, the MP-VD issued a closing order authorizing the transfer of banking documentation to the Netherlands. The appellant filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, seeking the annulment of the decision and the lifting of the seizure.
Law
The Appeals Chamber reiterates the principles governing international mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and the Netherlands, based primarily on the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and secondarily on the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).
- Right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Constitution): This right includes the right to inspect the file (Art. 80b IMAC). In matters of mutual assistance, this right extends to documents that are essential and decisive for the decision, primarily the request for assistance itself. Access may be limited to passages directly concerning the person involved, and inspection of superfluous or irrelevant documents may be denied.
- Formal requirements of the request (Art. 14 ECMA, Art. 28 IMAC): A request for mutual assistance must contain a summary of the facts sufficient to allow the requested authority to verify the conditions for assistance, particularly double criminality and proportionality. The requesting authority is not required to prove that the offense was committed; an objectively grounded suspicion is sufficient, especially in money laundering cases where complex corporate structures and significant transactions constitute relevant evidence.
- Principle of good faith: Mutual assistance relations are governed by a principle of mutual trust. The requested state generally relies on the statements of the requesting state. It is the responsibility of the party alleging a breach of good faith to clearly demonstrate it. A presumption of respect for fundamental rights applies to states party to the ECHR, such as the Netherlands.
- Double criminality (Art. 64 ITA, Art. 5 ECHR): To grant mutual assistance involving coercive measures, the facts described in the request must, prima facie, correspond to the objective constituent elements of an offense punishable under Swiss law. This is an abstract assessment: the question is not whether a conviction would be handed down in Switzerland, but whether the facts are punishable in theory. The legal classification does not need to be identical in both states.
- Principle of proportionality (Art. 36 Cst.): A seizure measure must be appropriate, necessary, and reasonable in light of the intended goal. In mutual assistance, the private interest of the asset holder is weighed against the requesting state's public interest in obtaining evidence and confiscating assets, as well as Switzerland's obligation to fulfill its international commitments.
Application to the specific case
The Complaints Chamber rejects all of the appellant's grievances:
- Violation of the right to be heard: The Court finds that the appellant had access to all essential documents concerning her, notably the 2025 mutual assistance request and the seized bank documents. Although this request refers to previous letters rogatory from 2021, their relevant content was sufficiently summarized in the decisions notified to her. Her right to be heard was therefore not violated.
- Formal requirements of the request: The Dutch request sufficiently describes the criminal scheme (illegal gambling), the appellant's involvement (beneficiary of winnings via a foundation), and the amounts involved. The use of numerous companies in several countries and the scale of the sums constitute sufficient evidence of money laundering to justify mutual assistance.
- Violation of the principle of good faith: The appellant provides no concrete evidence of a violation of her procedural rights in the Netherlands or of an abuse of process by the requesting authorities. Her arguments regarding alleged "tolerance" of the activity by Dutch authorities pertain to the merits of the case, which will be debated before the Dutch judge, and are insufficient to overturn the presumption of trust.
- Absence of dual criminality: The Court confirms that the described facts are punishable under Swiss law. Operating online casino games without a license is prohibited by the Gambling Act (Art. 130 GA). The Federal Supreme Court has already clarified in a related part of this case that the mere act of making an illicit game accessible in Switzerland falls under the law, even if the operator is abroad. Furthermore, the facts could also be classified as money laundering (Art. 305bis SCC). As the examination is limited to abstract punishability, the appellant's arguments regarding the concrete conditions for prosecution in Switzerland are deemed irrelevant.
- Violation of the principle of proportionality: The amount seized in Switzerland (approximately 3.66 million euros) is deemed proportionate to the estimated illicit proceeds the appellant allegedly received (approximately 3.21 million euros), especially since this estimate may change. The measure is necessary to ensure potential confiscation or a compensatory claim by the requesting state. The duration of the seizure, ordered in June 2025, is not considered excessive. The existence of other seizures in Belgium does not render the Swiss measure disproportionate at this stage of the proceedings.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed. The decision of the Vaud Public Prosecutor's Office to grant mutual legal assistance to the Netherlands, including the handover of bank documents and the maintenance of the seizure on the appellant's assets, is upheld. The procedural costs, set at CHF 5,000, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
