TPF, 07.15.2026, RR.2026.47
Facts
The Lodi Public Prosecutor's Office (Italy) is conducting criminal proceedings against B., C., and D. for extortion, money laundering, and fraudulent transfer of assets (Fact A).
The defendants are accused of using environmental pollution caused by dichloromethane, which occurred over nearly 20 years by the company E. s.r.l., as leverage to extort significant sums of money from the multinational corporation F. Europe s.p.a.
The payments were allegedly made into two Swiss bank accounts held by the company A. AG (Fact A).
In this context, the Italian authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on September 9, 2025, seeking the handover of documents related to these two bank accounts (Fact B).
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne, acting as the executing authority, accepted the request and ordered the production of the bank documents as well as the freezing of the assets (Fact C).
In a closing decision dated March 24, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the handover of the obtained bank documents to the Italian authorities and lifted the freeze on the accounts, as they were nearly empty (Fact E).
The company A. AG (hereinafter: the appellant), the account holder, filed an appeal against this closing decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting that the mutual legal assistance be denied (Fact F).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Italy is primarily governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and the bilateral agreements that supplement it.
Domestic law, in particular the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC), applies on a subsidiary basis (consid. 2.1, 2.2).
The request for mutual assistance must contain a statement of facts sufficient to allow the requested authority to verify whether the conditions for mutual assistance are met, in particular dual criminality and compliance with the principle of proportionality (Art. 14 EAMCA ; Art. 28 IMAC) (recital 5.2).
Case law does not require the statement of facts to be exhaustive or free of any contradictions.
The purpose of mutual assistance is precisely to allow the requesting State to clarify points that remain unclear.
The mutual assistance judge is bound by the statement of facts in the request, unless it contains manifest errors, omissions, or contradictions that invalidate it from the outset.
The judge is not required to examine the merits of the case (questions of fact or guilt) (recital 5.3).
The principle of proportionality requires that mutual assistance measures be appropriate and necessary for the foreign investigation.
Documents may only be refused if they are clearly unrelated to the offense under investigation.
It is sufficient that the documents are potentially relevant to the investigation, which includes exculpatory evidence (recital 6.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant, as the holder of the accounts in question, has standing to appeal against the disclosure of banking documents (recital 3.2).
The appellant argues that the statement of facts in the request for mutual assistance is incomplete and inaccurate, particularly regarding the chronology of events and certain transactions that do not appear on the account statements (recital 5.1).
The Court rejects this claim.
The statement of facts provided by the Italian authorities, which spans several pages, describes the alleged extortion and money laundering scheme in sufficient detail.
It is not marred by manifest errors that would justify refusing mutual assistance.
The fact that certain mentioned transactions cannot be found in the accounts or that some details are missing is not enough to invalidate the request, as the purpose of mutual assistance is precisely to clarify these points.
The appellant's arguments relate to a challenge on the merits of the case, which is not admissible at the mutual assistance stage (recital 5.4.2).
The appellant also alleges a violation of the principle of proportionality, characterizing the request as a "fishing expedition" (recital 6.1).
The Court also dismisses this argument.
The requested documents specifically concern the accounts through which the funds of illicit origin allegedly passed.
Their potential relevance to the investigation is therefore evident.
The fact that certain transactions are not visible on the statements does not change this relevance, as documents can also serve as exculpatory evidence.
There is therefore no illicit "fishing expedition" (consideration 6.3).
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber dismisses the appeal to the extent that it is admissible (consideration 7).
The handover of banking documents ordered by the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Lucerne is confirmed (consideration 7).