TPF, 03.06.2026, RR.2026.26
Facts
The Promoter of Justice of the Tribunal of the Vatican City State submitted to Switzerland a request for mutual legal assistance in the context of criminal proceedings for peculation, fraud, misappropriation and money laundering. The investigation targets several individuals, including executives of the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) and fund managers, suspected of having organised a fraudulent financial scheme during the acquisition of the former Budapest Stock Exchange Palace. This scheme is said to have generated unlawful enrichment of at least EUR 14 million to the detriment of the IOR. (let. A)
The Vatican authorities identified that part of the funds, nearly EUR 8 million, was allegedly transferred to a bank account in Geneva, held by the company A. Ltd as custodian for the AA fund. The assistance request therefore sought the seizure of this account and the related documentation. (let. A)
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (MPC), responsible for execution, granted the request and ordered the production of banking documents as well as the seizure of account no. 1. The amount of the seizure was adjusted several times, notably at the request of the requesting authority, to be finally set at EUR 7,967,694.37. (let. B, C)
By a closing order of 3 February 2026, the MPC ordered the transmission of the collected banking documents to the Vatican authority and maintained the seizure of the account for the aforementioned amount. It is against this decision that A. Ltd (the appellant) filed an appeal with the Complaints Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, seeking the annulment of the decision, the non-transmission of the documents and the total, or in the alternative partial, lifting of the seizure. (let. D, E, F, G)
Law
The Complaints Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court is the authority competent to rule on appeals in matters of international mutual legal assistance. In the absence of a bilateral treaty, relations between Switzerland and the Vatican City State are governed by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (EIMP) and its ordinance (OEIMP). The appeal procedure follows the rules of the Administrative Procedure Act (PA). (consid. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5)
Under art. 28 EIMP, a request for assistance must contain a statement of facts sufficient to allow the requested authority to understand the subject matter of the proceedings and to verify the absence of grounds for exclusion. The requested authority does not depart from this statement, except in the event of manifest and immediately recognisable errors, gaps or contradictions. It is not for it to assess the relevance of the foreign investigation or the guilt of the accused. (consid. 2.1)
The principle of dual criminality (art. 64 EIMP) requires that the facts described in the request also be punishable under Swiss law. This examination is carried out prima facie, without any identity of legal characterisation being necessary. It is sufficient that just one aspect of the conduct described be criminally relevant in Switzerland for the condition to be met. (consid. 3.1)
The principle of proportionality requires a sufficient nexus between the assistance measures (transmission of documents, seizure) and the foreign investigation. Case law has developed the criterion of « potential usefulness »: the transmission of evidence is excluded only if it is manifestly devoid of any relevance to the foreign proceedings. It is for the requesting authority to assess the usefulness of the evidence, and the requested authority may refuse its cooperation only if the request is abusive or manifestly disproportionate. (consid. 4.1)
The seizure of assets must have a sufficiently close link with the facts described and must not be disproportionate. The requesting authority must provide evidence showing, at least prima facie, that the targeted assets could be of criminal origin and thus liable to confiscation or restitution. (consid. 5.1)
Finally, the principle of speciality (art. 67 EIMP) guarantees that the information obtained through assistance will be used by the requesting State only for the purposes of the proceedings for which assistance was granted. (consid. 6.1)
Application to the present case
The Court first examines the validity of the assistance request. It finds that the Vatican letter rogatory, 22 pages long, sets out in a detailed and coherent manner the suspected fraudulent mechanism. It makes it possible to understand the subject matter of the investigation and the alleged offences. The Court rejects the appellant's arguments regarding alleged contradictions, recalling that it is not for it to redo the investigation or to judge the merits of the accusations. (consid. 2.2, 2.3)
Regarding dual criminality, the Court considers that the facts described, far from falling solely under civil law as the appellant claims, are clearly of a criminal nature. Under Swiss law, they may be characterised as criminal mismanagement (art. 158 CP), misappropriation (art. 138 CP) and money laundering (art. 305bis CP). The condition of dual criminality is therefore manifestly met. (consid. 3.2)
The Court then analyses the proportionality of the transmission of the banking documents. It holds that the criterion of potential usefulness is satisfied. The documents are necessary for the requesting authority to reconstruct the financial flows connected with the real estate transaction and to identify the origin and destination of the funds. The link between the investigation and the bank account is sufficiently established by the alleged transfer of part of the proceeds of the sale to this account. The transmission of the entire documentation is justified in order to allow a complete analysis and to avoid supplementary requests. (consid. 4.2)
As regards the seizure, the Court notes a discrepancy between the frozen amount (EUR 7,967,694.37) and the amount of the only transfer identified in the banking documentation by the MPC (EUR 6,999,975). Although the Vatican request mentions two transfers, the second was not traced. The Court considers that the MPC must clarify this point with the requesting authority. However, pending this clarification, and in view of the total alleged loss (more than EUR 14 million), maintaining the seizure in its entirety is provisionally justified. The potential link between the funds and the offence is sufficient at this stage. The appellant's arguments regarding economic harm are unsubstantiated and are therefore dismissed. (consid. 5.2)
Finally, the Court rejects the complaint concerning a violation of the principle of speciality. It notes that the MPC expressly provided that it would remind the Vatican authority of its obligation to comply with this principle when transmitting the documents. There is nothing to indicate that the Vatican City State will not comply with it. (consid. 6.2)
Outcome
The appeal is partially upheld. The Court orders the MPC to contact the requesting authority without delay in order to clarify the exact amount that must remain seized, taking into account the discrepancy found between the frozen amount and the transactions actually documented. (consid. 5.2, 7)
For the remainder, the appeal is dismissed. The decision to transmit the banking documentation to the Vatican authority is confirmed. The seizure is maintained in its entirety pending the clarification requested from the MPC. (consid. 7)
The court costs, set at CHF 7,000, are borne mostly by the appellant. On account of its partial success, party costs of CHF 2,000 are awarded to it, to be borne by the MPC. (consid. 8.1, 8.2)
