TPF, 03.06.2026, RR.2026.39
Facts
The Promoter of Justice 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 persons, including executives of the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) and fund managers. They are suspected of having organised a fraudulent investment operation connected with the acquisition of the former Budapest Stock Exchange Palace, causing the IOR a loss of at least EUR 14 million. Part of the funds is said to have passed through a bank account (no. 1) in Switzerland, held by A. Ltd on behalf of the AA fund. (let. A).
The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (MPC), responsible for execution, granted the request and ordered the production of the documentation relating to this account no. 1 (let. B). Subsequently, a suspicious activity report from MROS revealed the existence of a second account (no. 2) at the same bank, also held by A. Ltd, but in its capacity as custodian of the O. fund (let. C). The MPC then ordered the production of the documentation of this second account (let. D) and, by a closing order of 3 March 2026, decided to transmit the collected documents to the Vatican authorities (let. E).
A. Ltd (the appellant) filed an appeal against this closing order with the Complaints Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. It disputes the transmission of the documentation of account no. 2, arguing in particular a violation of the principle of proportionality, the absence of any link with the investigation, and the fact that the MPC allegedly acted beyond the initial request (let. F, G, H).
Law
The Court recalls that, in the absence of a treaty, assistance with the Vatican is governed by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (EIMP). The appeal procedure is governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (PA) (consid. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3).
Concerning the assistance request, art. 28 EIMP requires a statement of facts sufficient to allow the requested authority to understand the subject matter of the proceedings and to verify the absence of obstacles to assistance. The requested authority departs from this statement only if it contains manifest errors or contradictions, without having to verify the guilt of the accused (consid. 3.1).
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 requiring an exact correspondence of legal characterisations. It is sufficient that just one of the sets of facts described be criminally relevant in Switzerland (consid. 4.1).
The principle of proportionality requires a sufficient link between the requested documents and the foreign proceedings. The usefulness of the evidence is left primarily to the assessment of the requesting authority. Assistance may be refused only if the information is manifestly useless to the investigation (absence of "potential usefulness") or if the request amounts to a blind search for evidence ("fishing expedition"). In order to reconstruct financial flows, the transmission of the entire documentation is often justified. The executing authority must not act ultra petita (beyond the request), but it may interpret the request broadly and transmit documents not expressly mentioned if they are potentially useful to the investigation (consid. 6.1).
Finally, the principle of speciality (art. 67 EIMP) prohibits the requesting State from using the information obtained for facts for which assistance is inadmissible. The Swiss executing authority ensures compliance with this principle, in particular by reminding the requesting authority of it upon transmission (consid. 7.1).
Application to the present case
The Court rejects the request to join the proceedings with another case, since the two appeals concern separate closing orders and relate to different funds (the AA fund and the O. fund) (consid. 2).
The Court considers that the Vatican assistance request, 22 pages long, sets out the alleged facts and the suspected fraudulent mechanism in a sufficiently clear and detailed manner. It presents no manifest contradiction that would justify a refusal to grant assistance. It will be for the foreign trial court to establish the facts precisely (consid. 3.2, 3.3).
The condition of dual criminality is met. The facts described, involving manoeuvres to obtain enrichment to the detriment of the IOR, may be characterised prima facie as criminal mismanagement (art. 158 CP), misappropriation (art. 138 CP) and money laundering (art. 305bis CP) under Swiss law. The criminal nature of the facts is therefore beyond doubt (consid. 4.2).
The complaint regarding the absence of a specific decision to grant assistance for account no. 2 is dismissed. The MPC's initial decision of 7 July 2025 provided for the granting of assistance on the entire letter rogatory, with enforcement measures ordered by separate decisions, which was the case (consid. 5).
On the principle of proportionality, the Court holds that the documentation of account no. 2 has a "potential usefulness" for the investigation. This account is held by the same entity (A. Ltd) as account no. 1, and it is linked to the O. fund, which is at the heart of the financial scheme investigated by the Vatican authorities. The discovery of this account via an MROS report rather than through the initial request does not preclude its relevance. The transmission of its documentation makes it possible to reconstruct the financial flows and constitutes neither a "fishing expedition" nor an ultra petita act, but a reasonable and exhaustive interpretation of the assistance request. The Court notes that the MPC even made a restrictive selection of the documents to be transmitted, which is favourable to the appellant (consid. 6.2).
Finally, the argument based on a violation of the principle of speciality is rejected. The Court notes that the MPC expressly indicated in its closing order that the transmission would be carried out while reminding the Vatican authority of its obligation to comply with this principle. There is no reason to presume that the Vatican will not comply with it (consid. 7.2).
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber dismisses A. Ltd's appeal in its entirety and confirms the MPC's closing order directing the transmission of the disputed banking documentation to the authorities of the Vatican City State. The costs of the proceedings, set at CHF 4,000, are borne by the appellant (consid. 8, 9 and operative part).
