FPC, 08.07.2026, RR.2026.31
Facts
The Munich II Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting a criminal investigation against persons unknown for money laundering. In this context, it has submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to the Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Lucerne, requesting the production of documents relating to a bank account (IBAN 1) held at Bank B. The request is based on suspicions of investment fraud to the detriment of an individual named C., who was allegedly misled by unknown persons into purchasing shares of a company, D. Ltd, which was supposedly about to go public. A total of EUR 561,263.91 was allegedly transferred to the aforementioned account. (consid. A, 5.1)
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the canton of Lucerne accepted the request and ordered Bank B. to produce the required documents. These revealed that the account holder was the law firm A. GmbH (hereinafter: the appellant). After being given the opportunity to state its position, the appellant opposed the disclosure. By closing order dated February 19, 2026, the Lucerne Public Prosecutor's Office nevertheless ordered the handover of the bank documents to the German authorities. (consid. B, C, D)
The appellant filed an appeal against this closing order with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, seeking its annulment and the refusal of mutual assistance. It also requested that suspensive effect be granted. Both the Lucerne Public Prosecutor's Office and the Federal Office of Justice concluded that the appeal should be dismissed. (consid. E, F)
Law
Cooperation in matters of mutual criminal assistance between Switzerland and Germany is governed primarily by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA), its additional protocols, and the bilateral treaty supplementing the ECMA. In addition, the Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime (CETS 141), the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), and the Convention implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA) apply. Domestic law, namely the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and its Ordinance (OIMAC), applies on a subsidiary basis, in particular by virtue of the principle of favor (favor conventionis). (consid. 1.1, 1.2)
The closing order of the cantonal executing authority is subject to appeal before the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. Standing to appeal is granted to any person personally and directly affected by a mutual assistance measure who has a legitimate interest in its annulment or amendment (Art. 80h let. b IMAC). The holder of a bank account is typically considered to be such a person (Art. 9a let. a OIMAC). (consid. 2.1)
A request for mutual assistance must contain sufficient information to enable the requested authority to examine whether the conditions for mutual assistance are met, in particular the principle of dual criminality, the absence of a political or fiscal offense, and compliance with the principle of proportionality. Jurisprudence does not require an exhaustive and contradiction-free description of the facts; the judge overseeing the mutual assistance is bound by the statement of facts in the request, except in cases of manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions, and does not conduct an assessment of the evidence. (consid. 5.3.1)
For the application of coercive measures, such as the handover of documents, the act described in the request must be punishable under the laws of both states (dual criminality). It is sufficient that the facts, had they been committed in Switzerland, would fulfill the objective elements of an offense under Swiss law. In matters of money laundering (Art. 305bis SCC), the request does not need to precisely describe the predicate offense (principal crime). It is sufficient that suspicious financial transactions are set out, with serious indications that the funds originate from a crime. (consid. 5.3.2, 5.4)
Finally, the law on mutual assistance prohibits "fishing expeditions." The request must be based on sufficiently concrete suspicions and describe the investigated facts precisely to avoid an indeterminate search for incriminating evidence. A sufficient material connection must exist between the alleged facts and the documents whose handover is requested. (consid. 5.6.2)
Application to the specific case
The Court finds that the appellant, as the holder of the account in question, has standing to appeal. The appeal, having been filed within the prescribed time limits and in the proper form, is admissible. The request for suspensive effect is moot, as the appeal has such effect by operation of law. (consid. 2.2, 3)
The appellant argues that the suspicions are insufficient and that the request constitutes a fishing expedition. She contests several factual elements of the German request, claiming to have acted merely as an agent for D. Ltd by receiving and transferring funds. The Court rejects this argument. It reiterates that it is not a trial court and does not conduct an assessment of the evidence. The appellant's challenges and version of the facts are insufficient to demonstrate manifest errors or contradictions in the statement of facts provided in the mutual assistance request. (consid. 5.5)
The Court finds that the facts described by the German authorities can, at first glance, be subsumed under the offense of money laundering (Art. 305bis SCC). The request mentions a potential predicate offense, namely fraud (Art. 146 SCC), which is a felony and therefore a qualified predicate offense for money laundering. Even if the details of this fraud are not fully described, this is consistent with case law, which does not require an exhaustive description of the principal crime at this stage. The suspicions are therefore deemed sufficient. (consid. 5.5)
Regarding the complaint of a fishing expedition, the Court also rejects it. The mutual assistance request does not seek information at random; it specifically identifies a bank, an account number, and sets out concrete facts linking this account to a criminal offense under investigation in Germany. The conditions of Art. 14 EIMP are therefore met. The Court adds that the information transmitted could also serve to exonerate the appellant in the German proceedings. (consid. 5.6, 5.7)
Outcome
The Federal Criminal Court concludes that no obstacles to mutual assistance are apparent. The appeal is found to be unfounded on all points and is therefore dismissed. (consid. 6)
The court costs, set at CHF 5,000, are to be borne by the appellant and offset against the advance payment already made. (consid. 7, operative part 1-2)