TPF, 07.21.2026, RR.2025.82
Facts
The Mühlhausen Public Prosecutor's Office (Germany) is conducting criminal proceedings for bankruptcy against B., a German national (fact A).
He is suspected of having concealed assets during his personal insolvency proceedings, notably by using companies allegedly linked to him economically, including the Swiss company A. AG (fact C, consid. 4.3).
In this context, the German Public Prosecutor's Office sent a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on January 13, 2025, seeking information regarding a credit card issued in Switzerland in the name of A. AG (fact B).
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 (facts D and E).
After receiving the documents, the executing authority invited A. AG to comment on a simplified transfer, which the latter refused (fact F).
By closing decision of May 8, 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 September 23, 2020, to June 12, 2024 (fact G).
A. AG (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court against this decision, requesting that legal 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) (consid. 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 (consid. 4.2.1).
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 it fails to do so at this stage, it is in principle precluded from raising these arguments for the first time in the context of an appeal (foreclosure) (consid. 4.2.2).
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 does not do so in detail (consid. 4.2.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant, as the credit card account holder, has standing to appeal (consid. 2.2).
On the merits, the appellant disputes the relevance of the information to the German investigation and alleges a "fishing expedition," arguing that the request is not sufficiently targeted and that the link to the accused B. is not proven (consid. 4.1).
The Court finds that the statement of facts in the request for mutual assistance 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 as a structure controlled by the accused.
The connection between the German investigation and the appellant's credit card account is therefore established (consid. 4.3 and 4.4).
The Court further notes that the appellant failed to comply with its duty to cooperate.
Before the executing authority, it merely refused the transmission in bulk, without specifying which documents or transactions it considered to be irrelevant.
It maintained this general approach in its appeal, without providing a detailed, document-by-document argument (consid. 4.2.2).
By failing to fulfill its obligation to cooperate and to provide specific grounds for its objections, the appellant is precluded from challenging the relevance of the documents at the appeal stage (consid. 4.2.2).
It is not for the Court to perform the detailed sorting that the appellant failed to do itself.
The claim of a violation of the principle of proportionality is therefore rejected (consid. 4.4).
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed (dispositif 1).
The closing decision ordering the handover of the bank documents is confirmed (consid. 5).
The court costs, set at 4,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant (operative part 2, recital 6).