TPF, 11.02.2026, RR.2025.76, RR.2025.77
Facts
As part of a criminal investigation into fraud, corruption, and tax evasion, Spanish judicial authorities requested that Switzerland provide documents relating to two bank accounts held by the companies A. AG (the appellant) and C. SA (a company acquired by the appellant in 2017). The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the production of the documents by the bank in question and, by way of a closing decision, authorized their transmission to Spain.
A. AG appealed this decision to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. It sought the annulment of the decision and the refusal of mutual assistance, arguing that it had already voluntarily provided the relevant documents. It also requested a stay of the appeal proceedings.
Law
The Court reiterates the principles governing international mutual legal assistance.
First, mutual assistance proceedings cannot be suspended as long as the requesting state has not formally withdrawn its request. The principle of speed (art. 17a IMAC) requires that the proceedings continue.
Second, the principle of proportionality only precludes the transmission of documents if they are manifestly irrelevant to the investigation, which would constitute a "fishing expedition." The usefulness of the information is a matter for the requesting authority to determine. The requested authority must transmit all documents that have "potential relevance" to the foreign investigation, including exculpatory evidence or information regarding transactions occurring before or after the main events. It is the responsibility of the affected party to demonstrate precisely why the documents lack any relevance.
Third, trade secrets, unlike professional secrets protected byart. 321 SCC, do not constitute an absolute obstacle to mutual assistance. Their protection is subject to a balancing of interests, in which the public interest in criminal prosecution generally prevails.
Application to the case at hand
The Appeals Chamber first rejects the request for a stay, as Spain has not withdrawn its request for mutual assistance.
Next, it examines the proportionality argument. The appellant claimed to be an uninvolved third party and that the accounts had been closed before the alleged offenses. However, the Court notes that the Spanish investigation suspects that the Swiss companies were used for payments related to the offenses. It identifies an obvious link between the appellant, C. SA, and the Spanish company at the heart of the investigation, notably through a 1.5 million euro transaction made by the appellant in 2013, well before the period of the main events. This link demonstrates the potential relevance of the documents, even if they predate the events. It is for the Spanish authorities, not the Swiss ones, to assess the probative value of the documents. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the documents were certainly devoid of relevance.
Finally, regarding trade secrets, the Court finds that the appellant did not sufficiently justify why the protection of its commercial interests should prevail over the interest of the Spanish criminal investigation. The argument is therefore dismissed.
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber joins the two proceedings, denies the request for a stay, and dismisses the appeals. The legal costs, set at CHF 5,000, are to be borne by the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
