FPC, 19.12.2025, RR.2025.80
Facts
As part of a criminal investigation into corruption involving a former high-ranking Ukrainian official, the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on December 22, 2023. The request sought the transfer of documents relating to bank accounts held by the Swedish company A. AB (the appellant) at Bank C. in Switzerland.
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG), responsible for executing the request, decided to include in the mutual assistance file bank documents concerning the appellant that had already been seized in a separate Swiss criminal proceeding. On April 24, 2025, by way of a closing decision, the OAG authorized the transfer of these documents to Ukraine.
The company A. AB filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment and the refusal of mutual assistance.
Law
The Appeals Chamber reiterates that mutual assistance between Switzerland and Ukraine is primarily governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA). The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies subsidiarily, particularly by virtue of the principle of favor.
The holder of a bank account is directly and personally affected by the transfer of information concerning them and therefore has standing to appeal (art. 80h let. b IMAC).
The right to be heard (art. 29 para. 2 Cst. and 80b IMAC) guarantees the right to inspect the file and obtain a reasoned decision. The right of inspection extends only to documents relevant to the mutual assistance measure that directly concerns the party.
A request for mutual assistance must contain a sufficient statement of facts to allow the requested authority to examine its admissibility, particularly with regard to the principles of proportionality and dual criminality (art. 14 para. 2 ECMA). The mutual assistance authority is bound by the statement of facts in the request, barring manifest errors or contradictions, and is not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing. The transfer of documents is justified if they are of "potential relevance" (potentielle Erheblichkeit) to the foreign investigation, which excludes fishing expeditions.
A legal entity that is not itself a defendant in the foreign proceedings and does not have its registered office in the requesting state cannot, in principle, invoke the grounds for refusal underArt. 2 IMAC (prejudice to sovereignty, security, public order, or other essential interests).
Application to the specific case
The Appeals Chamber rejects all of the appellant's grievances.
First, the right to be heard was not violated. The appellant had access to all documents relevant to the decision concerning it. In particular, it could not demand to consult a previous mutual assistance request (from 2017) that did not form the basis for the contested measure. Furthermore, the OAG's decision was sufficiently reasoned to allow the appellant to effectively challenge it, as evidenced by its detailed appeal brief.
Second, the statement of facts in the mutual assistance request is deemed sufficient. It describes a scheme of corruption and money laundering involving illicit VAT refunds, the proceeds of which allegedly passed through, among others, the appellant's accounts. The fact that the request does not contain evidence or has certain gaps is not an obstacle, as the purpose of mutual assistance is precisely to clarify these points.
Third, the grievance regarding a fishing expedition is dismissed. The documents to be transmitted are potentially useful for tracing suspicious financial flows. The OAG correctly limited the transmission to the relevant period, while justifiably including certain earlier documents (e.g., account opening forms) that mention key individuals and companies in the Ukrainian investigation.
Finally, the Court finds that the appellant, as a legal entity based in Sweden and not a defendant in the Ukrainian proceedings, lacks standing to invoke a violation of Art. 2 IMAC or the principle of ne bis in idem. As for the principle of specialty, its compliance is presumed under the principle of trust between states and is, moreover, reiterated by an express reservation in the operative part of the OAG's decision.
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court dismisses the appeal. The court costs, set at CHF 5,000, are charged to the appellant.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
