TPF, 06.03.2026, RR.2025.203, RR.2025.204
Facts
In November 2012, Italian judicial authorities (La Spezia Public Prosecutor's Office) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland in connection with a criminal investigation targeting C. and other individuals for various economic and tax offenses, including fraudulent bankruptcy and tax fraud. The alleged criminal scheme involved restructuring companies heavily indebted to the Italian tax authorities. The assets of these companies were transferred to new, solvent entities, while the "empty" companies, retaining only the tax debts, were relocated abroad after being used to issue false invoices.
Suspecting that funds of criminal origin had been transferred to Switzerland, Italy requested the seizure of bank accounts linked to C. The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) complied with this request between December 2012 and January 2013, ordering the freezing of several assets, including two bank accounts in C.'s name.
Subsequently, Italian courts issued a final confiscation order for these Swiss assets, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of Cassation in February 2019. In July 2021, Italy submitted a supplementary request to Switzerland to obtain the execution of this confiscation order and the handover of the funds.
On November 10, 2025, the OAG issued its closing decision, ordering the handover of the seized assets to the Italian State. A. (C.'s lawyer) and B. (represented by A.) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. C. passed away in October 2023, and his heirs have renounced the estate.
Law
The Appeals Chamber notes the legal framework governing mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Italy, which includes several European and bilateral conventions, as well as the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) on a subsidiary basis.
The central point of the legal analysis concerns the admissibility of the appeal, specifically the standing to appeal within the meaning ofArt. 80h IMAC. To be eligible to appeal, a person must be "personally and directly affected" by the mutual assistance measure and have a "legitimate interest" in its cancellation or modification. Case law specifies that in matters of bank account seizures, this standing is generally recognized for the account holder, but not for a person indirectly affected, such as a mere beneficial owner.
The appeal by lawyer A. also raises the issue of the payment of her fees from the seized funds. She invokes her good faith underArt. 74a para. 4 let. c IMAC, which concerns the rights of third parties to assets to be handed over. The court therefore examines whether there is a legal basis for deducting attorney's fees from assets of alleged illicit origin that are subject to an international handover request.
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber analyzes the admissibility of the appeal for each of the appellants:
- Regarding B.: The court notes that the bank accounts were in the name of C., who is deceased. As his heirs have renounced the estate, B. has no direct legal link to the assets in question. She is neither the account holder nor an heir. Consequently, she is not "personally and directly affected" by the handover decision. Her appeal is therefore deemed inadmissible.
- Regarding A. (the lawyer): A.'s situation is different. She had requested that the OAG release a portion of the seized funds (CHF 55,229.85) to cover her fees for the defense of C. and subsequently B. The OAG's closing decision, by ordering the handover of all funds, implicitly but necessarily rejected this claim. This refusal directly affects A.'s pecuniary interests. She therefore has standing to appeal. Her appeal is deemed admissible on this point.
On the merits, the Court then examines the validity of A.'s claim:
- Lack of legal basis: The court asserts peremptorily that there is no legal basis under Swiss law that would authorize the payment of attorney's fees using assets seized in the context of mutual legal assistance and presumed to be of criminal origin. This ground alone is sufficient to reject the complaint.
- Lack of good faith: Alternatively, the Court rejects the argument of good faith (Art. 74a para. 4 let. c IMAC). As counsel for C., A. was fully aware of the nature of the criminal charges brought by Italy and the fact that the requesting authorities considered the funds to be the proceeds of crime. Under these circumstances, she could not claim good faith to assert rights over these assets.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible. The decision of the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland to order the confiscation and transfer of the bank assets to Italy is upheld. The court costs, set at CHF 4,000, are to be borne jointly and severally by the appellants A. and B.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
