Federal Criminal Court, 01/21/2026, RR.2025.89, RR.2025.90
Facts
On May 29, 2024, French authorities (deputy prosecutors at the Paris Judicial Court) submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland as part of a preliminary investigation opened in October 2022 into organized money laundering and aggravated money laundering, related to covert operations involving the acquisition, valuation, transfer, and sale of real estate in France.
According to the request, a scheme allegedly involved Cypriot companies (including A. Ltd), intermediary French companies, and a company called C. SA, with the presumed beneficial owner being D., a Russian national living in Switzerland. The assistance sought, in particular, to:
- confirm or refute the Swiss residency of D. and his son E.,
- transmit bank account statements (since 2015) for their Swiss banking relationships, including those of companies belonging to them, such as A. Ltd.
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) delegated execution to the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office (MP-GE) on September 3, 2024. The MP-GE issued an order to proceed on October 30, 2024, and ordered the evidentiary seizure of banking documentation from two banks, accompanied by non-disclosure orders. The banks transmitted the documents in November/December 2024 and January 2025. The MP-GE lifted the non-disclosure orders on February 10, 2025, and invited the account holders to provide their comments. A. Ltd opposed the transmission.
On May 19, 2025, the MP-GE issued two partial closing decisions ordering the handover of documents concerning three banking relationships. A. Ltd appealed on June 20, 2025, citing in particular the impact of the CJEU decisions of April 2, 2025, which annulled European sanctions against D. and E., and challenging the dual criminality requirement.
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and France is primarily governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA), its Second Additional Protocol, the bilateral CH–FR agreement, and the Schengen Convention (CISA); the Convention on Laundering (CETS 141) and the UNCAC (particularly regarding money laundering) may also be relevant. Domestic law (IMAC/OIMAC) applies to matters not covered or where it is more favorable, subject to fundamental rights.
The Appeals Chamber has jurisdiction to hear appeals against closing decisions and, concurrently, incidental decisions. The appellant, as the holder of the accounts in question, has standing to appeal; the appeal was filed within the 30-day time limit.
On the merits, the judgment reiterates, in particular:
- the right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Swiss Constitution; Art. 6 para. 1 of the ECHR) and the obligation to provide reasons;
- dual criminality in "minor mutual assistance": it is sufficient that the described facts correspond prima facie to a Swiss offense (Art. 64 para. 1 ITA), without requiring the same qualification or full proof, and without needing to establish dual criminality for every count;
- for money laundering (Art. 305bis SCC), an objective suspicion may suffice; the requesting authority does not necessarily have to prove the predicate offense, and cooperation is possible based on suspicious transactions (complex structures, multiple companies, lack of apparent justification, large amounts).
Application to the specific case
Right to be heard: The Court rejects the complaint. It finds that the Geneva Public Prosecutor's Office responded sufficiently to the objections (notably regarding the predicate offense and dual criminality), and that the June 6, 2025, exchange with French authorities (regarding the effect of CJEU rulings) was indeed in the file and was disclosed. Even assuming a deficiency, it could have been remedied during the appeal proceedings.
Dual criminality: The Court considers that the request outlines a pattern of atypical real estate and financial operations (multiple companies in several countries, interpositions, large unrepaid loans, injections of funds of uncertain origin, transfers occurring just before the freezing of assets, etc.) constituting sufficient evidence of money laundering within the meaning of Art. 305bis SCC.
It rejects the argument that the investigation is based solely on tax/customs offenses and emphasizes that a single offense meeting the objective elements is sufficient to grant mutual assistance. The existence and/or annulment of European sanctions does not, in itself, prevent the continuation of cooperation regarding money laundering, provided the French authorities maintain the request.
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed.
A court fee of CHF 5,000 is charged to the appellant, covered by the advance payment; CHF 1,000 is refunded to them.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
