FPC, 08.26.2026, RR.2025.198
Facts
On July 10, 2020, the Ukrainian authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland in connection with an investigation into money laundering, corruption, and tax evasion.
The investigation primarily targets C., a former Ukrainian minister close to ex-president D., who is suspected of having established a criminal organization to embezzle state assets.
A. is suspected of having helped C. set up the financial structures necessary to give a legal appearance to the embezzled funds and to transfer them abroad (fact A).
The mutual assistance request aims in particular to obtain banking documentation relating to a business relationship opened in the name of A. and B. at bank I. for the period from January 1, 2010, to May 1, 2020 (fact A).
Following several exchanges and requests for additional information, the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) delegated the execution of the request to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) on April 27, 2021 (fact C).
The OAG accepted the request, while declaring the mutual assistance inadmissible regarding the offense of tax evasion (fact D).
By closing decision dated November 7, 2025, the OAG ordered the transmission to Ukraine of the opening documents and statements for the bank account held in the name of A. and B. (fact E).
A. and B. (hereinafter: the appellants) filed an appeal against this decision.
They primarily allege a violation of their right to be heard due to significant redactions in the mutual assistance request, and contest the fulfillment of the dual criminality requirement for money laundering (fact F).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Ukraine is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and several other international conventions (Convention on Laundering, United Nations Convention against Corruption), supplemented by domestic law (IMAC) (consid. 1.1 and 1.2).
The right to be heard in matters of mutual assistance (art. 80b IMAC) implies the right to consult the file, including the mutual assistance request and its annexes.
This right may be restricted, notably through the redaction of certain passages, to protect the interests of the foreign proceedings or those of third parties.
However, the party must remain able to understand the object and purpose of the request in order to effectively assert their rights, particularly regarding dual criminality and proportionality (recital 2.2.1).
Consultation is limited to documents relevant to the outcome of the case (recital 2.2.2).
The condition of dual criminality (art. 64 IMAC) is met when the facts described in the mutual assistance request correspond, prima facie, to the objective elements of an offense punishable under Swiss law.
The mutual assistance judge does not rule on the veracity of the facts and may only deviate from the account provided in the request if it contains manifest errors or contradictions (recital 3.2.1).
In matters of money laundering (art. 305bis SCC), it is not necessary for the predicate offense to be proven or precisely detailed in the mutual assistance request.
A simple, objectively grounded suspicion is sufficient.
The existence of suspicious transactions lacking apparent economic justification, or the use of complex international corporate structures, may be enough to establish a suspicion of money laundering and justify mutual assistance (recital 3.2.3).
Application to the specific case
The appellants, as account holders, have standing to appeal against the transmission of bank documents (recital 1.4).
Regarding the alleged violation of the right to be heard, the Court rejects the claim.
Although the mutual assistance request was partially redacted, the appellants had access to the OAG's decision to initiate proceedings, which summarizes the facts, the individuals targeted, and the offenses being prosecuted.
These elements allowed them to understand the essence of the request and to present their arguments regarding dual criminality and proportionality, as evidenced by their detailed appeal.
The redacted parts concern third parties, and their consultation is not necessary for the appellants' defense (recital 2.3.1).
The right to be heard was therefore not violated (recital 2.3.3).
Regarding dual criminality, the appellants argue that the predicate offense for money laundering has not been sufficiently established.
The Court rejects this argument, relying on established case law in this area.
The statement of facts in the mutual assistance request describes a complex scheme involving political figures, significant financial flows, and international shell companies, which is sufficient to establish a suspicion of money laundering within the meaning of Art. 305bis of the Swiss Criminal Code (consid. 3.1.2 and 3.2.3).
It is not necessary, at this stage, to prove the predicate offense.
The condition of dual criminality is therefore met (consid. 3.1.2).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed to the extent that it is admissible.
The OAG’s closing decision ordering the transmission of banking documents to Ukraine is upheld.