FCTC, 08.04.2026, RR.2026.37
Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of St. Gallen is conducting a criminal investigation into A., a Swiss national residing in Liechtenstein, on suspicion of repeated fraud. He is specifically suspected of having fraudulently obtained a transfer of 100,000 EUR in 2017. In this context, the Swiss authorities obtained documents relating to a bank account in Liechtenstein, of which A. is the beneficial owner, through mutual legal assistance.
Based on this information, the Liechtenstein Court of First Instance opened its own investigation into A. for money laundering. Subsequently, the Liechtenstein authorities sent a request for mutual assistance to Switzerland, seeking information on the status of the Swiss proceedings, the analysis of the transmitted bank documents, and the existence of a link between the funds and the offenses under investigation in Switzerland.
By decision of February 25, 2026, the St. Gallen Cantonal Investigation Office agreed to transmit the requested information. A. (the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment.
Legal Analysis
The Court first recalls the legal framework applicable to mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Liechtenstein, which includes the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA), its protocols, the Convention Implementing the Schengen Agreement (CISA), and, subsidiarily, the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC). Domestic law applies if it is more favorable (principle of favor). (consid. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3)
The Court then focuses on the standing to appeal (art. 80h let. b IMAC). To be able to challenge a mutual assistance decision, a person must be "personally and directly affected" by the measure and have a protectable interest in its annulment. This means that they must be subject to a coercive measure on Swiss territory. (consid. 2.1, 2.2)
Case law specifies that the mere transmission of information or evidence already in the possession of the Swiss authorities generally does not constitute a coercive measure. Consequently, the person targeted by the foreign proceedings does not, in principle, have standing to appeal against the transmission of information regarding the status of a Swiss proceeding or the assessment of evidence. An important exception exists: the holder of a Swiss bank account is considered personally and directly affected by the transmission of their bank data and therefore has standing to appeal. (consid. 2.2)
Application to the specific case
The Court applies these principles to the present case to determine whether the appellant A. has standing to oppose the transmission of information to Liechtenstein. It finds that the information to be transmitted does not fall within the appellant's private sphere, as the Liechtenstein authorities are already aware of the Swiss proceedings, having themselves opened an investigation on this basis. (consid. 2.3)
Furthermore, the Court emphasizes that the exception regarding bank data does not apply here. Indeed, the information concerns a bank account located in Liechtenstein, not in Switzerland. Moreover, the account is not in the appellant's name (but in that of a company), and the bank documents are already in the possession of the Liechtenstein authorities. (consid. 2.3)
The Court concludes that the communications ordered by the St. Gallen authority do not constitute coercive measures to which the appellant should have been subjected in Switzerland. Not being personally and directly affected by the mutual assistance measure, the appellant does not have standing to appeal against the decision to transmit the information. (consid. 2.3)
Outcome
The appeal is declared inadmissible due to the appellant's lack of standing. The court costs, set at 2,000 CHF, are charged to the appellant. (consid. 2.4, 3)
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
