TPF, 06/15/2026, RR.2026.42, RP.2026.19
Facts
German authorities issued an alert in the Schengen Information System (SIS) for the arrest and extradition of A., a German and American national, based on an arrest warrant from the Hanover District Court for professional fraud. A. was arrested in the canton of Zurich in November 2025 and placed in pre-trial detention pending extradition by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ). He opposed the simplified extradition procedure. (Sachverhalt A-C)
Following the rejection of several release requests, the German authorities formally transmitted the extradition request in December 2025. A. was granted court-appointed legal aid for the proceedings before the FOJ. In February 2026, the FOJ authorized A.'s extradition to Germany for the offenses covered by the request. (Sachverhalt D-K)
A. filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. He requested the annulment of the extradition decision, his immediate release, and, alternatively, the referral of the case back to the FOJ for further investigation. He also requested legal aid for the appeal proceedings. The appellant subsequently withdrew his grievance regarding the compensation for his court-appointed legal counsel. (Sachverhalt L-N)
Law
Extradition cooperation between Switzerland and Germany is primarily governed by the European Convention on Extradition (ECE) and its additional protocols, the bilateral treaty supplementing the ECE, as well as the Schengen agreements and their developments. Alternatively, the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its implementing ordinance (IMAO) apply. Domestic law may be applied if it is more favorable to extradition (principle of favor), provided that human rights are respected. (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
For extradition to be granted, the offense must be punishable under the laws of both states (principle of dual criminality). The offense must be punishable by a custodial sentence of at least one year under the ECE, or at least twelve months in the requesting state and six months in Switzerland under the EU extradition agreement. The examination of punishability under Swiss law is conducted prima facie, based on the facts described in the extradition request, without requiring perfect identity of the penal provisions. (consid. 4.2, 4.3)
Fraud within the meaning ofArt. 146 SCC requires fraudulent deception. Deception is recognized when there is a web of lies, fraudulent maneuvers (staging), or when verifying the perpetrator's claims is impossible, difficult, or cannot reasonably be expected. Case law takes into account the victim's co-responsibility, but deception is only excluded if the victim acted with gross negligence by failing to take the most basic precautionary measures. Deception regarding the intent to perform an obligation is, in principle, fraudulent, as it concerns an internal fact that is not directly verifiable. (consid. 4.4)
The principle of ne bis in idem prohibits a person from being prosecuted or tried a second time for acts for which they have already been acquitted or convicted by a final judgment. In the context of mutual assistance, it is the responsibility of the person being prosecuted who invokes this principle to substantiate it with a minimum level of plausibility by providing concrete information regarding the alleged judgments rendered. (consid. 5.1, 5.4)
Application to the specific case
The appellant contests the dual criminality requirement, arguing that the element of "craftiness" (astuce), which is a constituent element of fraud under Swiss law, is not met. He maintains that the victims should have performed basic due diligence given the significant sums involved, which he claims constitutes victim co-responsibility. The Court rejects this argument. The facts described in the extradition request—the creation of multiple companies, the opening of accounts, the conclusion of contracts, and the involvement of several accomplices—do not constitute simple deception, but rather complex fraudulent maneuvers, indeed a veritable edifice of lies. The professional appearance of the appellant and his accomplices specifically suggested to the victims that the activity was legitimate and dissuaded them from being suspicious. The deception concerned the intent to execute the contracts, an internal fact that was unverifiable for the victims. The element of craftiness is therefore established prima facie. The condition of dual criminality for fraud is met, rendering an examination of the subsidiary charge of breach of trust unnecessary. (consid. 4.1, 4.5, 4.6)
The appellant then invokes a violation of the *ne bis in idem* principle, claiming to have already been acquitted of the same facts by the Hanover District Court. The Court dismisses this claim as entirely unsubstantiated. The appellant failed to provide any concrete information (judgment dates, case numbers) to support his allegations, despite the burden of proof resting on him. His detention did not prevent him from providing this basic information. Furthermore, his argument is deemed implausible, as it would imply that the same prosecutor's office that had supposedly suffered acquittals would have initiated new proceedings for the same facts. The FOJ was therefore not required to conduct further investigations on this point. (consid. 5.1, 5.4, 5.5)
The request for immediate release, which is ancillary to the extradition appeal, is also rejected, as the main appeal is itself dismissed and the extradition is deemed admissible. (consid. 7.1, 7.2, 7.3)
Finally, the request for legal aid for the appeal proceedings is rejected. The Court finds that the appeal was devoid of any chance of success from the outset. The grievances raised were a mere repetition of those already presented to the FOJ, which had been convincingly refuted in the contested decision. Under these circumstances, the outcome of the proceedings left no room for doubt. (consid. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3)
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court acknowledges the partial withdrawal of the appeal. For the remainder, it dismisses the appeal and confirms the decision of the Federal Office of Justice authorizing the extradition of A. to Germany. The ancillary request for release and the request for legal aid are also rejected. The court costs, set at CHF 2,500, are charged to the appellant. (Dispositif 1-4)