TPF, 07.21.2026, RR.2025.194
Facts
The Mühlhausen Public Prosecutor's Office (Germany) is conducting criminal proceedings for bankruptcy against B.
He is suspected of having concealed assets during his personal insolvency proceedings, notably by using companies to which he is allegedly economically linked, including the Swiss company A. AG (fact G, para. 6.3).
In this context, the German Public Prosecutor's Office sent a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on July 30, 2025, seeking information regarding a credit card issued in Switzerland in the name of A. AG (facts B and C).
The Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich (hereinafter: the executing authority) ordered the production of documents relating to this credit card from the issuer, E. SA (fact D).
After receiving the documents, the executing authority invited A. AG to comment on a simplified transfer, which the latter refused (facts E and F).
By closing decision of November 5, 2025, the executing authority ordered the handover to the German authorities of the credit card account opening documents and copies of invoices for the period from August 6, 2024, to August 12, 2025 (fact G).
A. AG (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting that mutual assistance be refused and alleging a violation of the principle of proportionality (fact H).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Germany is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and various supplementary agreements, as well as, subsidiarily, by Swiss law (IMAC) (para. 1.1 and 1.2).
The principle of proportionality requires a connection between the requested documents and the foreign investigation.
A refusal is only possible if the documents are manifestly unsuitable for advancing the investigation, in which case the request amounts to a "fishing expedition."
It is sufficient that the documents are potentially relevant to the investigation, which includes exculpatory evidence (para. 6.2.1).
The person affected by a mutual assistance measure has an obligation to cooperate in the sorting of documents.
It is their responsibility to indicate clearly and precisely, already before the executing authority, which documents or passages of documents should not be transmitted and for what reasons (for example, total lack of relevance).
If they fail to do so at this stage, they are in principle precluded from raising these arguments for the first time in the context of an appeal (foreclosure) (para. 6.2.2).
The appellate authority is not required to search on its own initiative for documents that might be irrelevant to the foreign investigation if the appellant fails to do so in a detailed manner (consideration 6.2.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant, as the credit card account holder, has standing to appeal (consideration 2.2).
The Court first rejects the appellant's arguments regarding credit card number errors in the executing authority's communications.
It finds that these were obvious errors and that the appellant could easily understand, upon reading the attached documents, which accounts were actually being targeted (considerations 4 and 5).
On the merits, the appellant disputes the relevance of the information to the German investigation and alleges a "fishing expedition" (consideration 6.1).
The Court finds that the statement of facts in the mutual assistance request is sufficiently detailed.
It describes a scheme to conceal assets in the context of a bankruptcy, in which the appellant is suspected of playing a role.
The connection between the German investigation and the appellant's credit card account is therefore established (considerations 6.3 and 6.4).
The Court further notes that the appellant failed to fulfill her duty to cooperate.
Before the executing authority, she merely refused the transmission in its entirety, without specifying which documents or transactions she considered irrelevant.
She maintained this general approach in her appeal, without providing a detailed, document-by-document argument (consideration 6.2.2).
By failing to fulfill her obligation to cooperate and to specifically substantiate her grievances, the appellant has forfeited her right to challenge the relevance of the documents at the appeal stage (consideration 6.2.2).
It is not the Court's role to perform the detailed sorting that the appellant failed to do herself.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible.
The closing decision ordering the handover of the bank documents is upheld.