TPF, 28.07.2026, RR.2026.5
Facts
The Hamburg Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting criminal proceedings against B. and C. for money laundering. The defendants are suspected of having introduced approximately EUR 3.26 million derived from criminal activities into the legal economic circuit, notably through the company F. GmbH. A portion of these funds, amounting to EUR 1,162,960.72, allegedly passed through a Swiss bank account held by A. GmbH before being largely transferred to Germany as part of a real estate transaction. Upon a German request for mutual legal assistance, the Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office ordered the transmission of bank documents related to this account. A. GmbH appealed this decision, citing a violation of the principle of proportionality and requesting, in the alternative, that the transmission be limited to transactions directly linked to F. GmbH (consid. 4.1 and 4.3).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Germany is governed primarily by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA), its additional protocols, and applicable conventions on money laundering. The Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) applies subsidiarily, notably in accordance with the principle of favor. The holder of a bank account has standing to appeal a decision ordering the transmission of their bank documents to a foreign state (consid. 1.1 to 2.2).
According to the principle of proportionality, mutual assistance may only be refused when the requested documents are manifestly unrelated to the prosecuted offense and unsuitable for advancing the investigation. The determining criterion is the potential utility of the information. The Swiss authority is not required to assess its actual necessity for the foreign proceedings, but rather to verify the existence of a sufficient link to the investigated facts. A broad interpretation of the request for assistance remains permissible, subject to the prohibition of "fishing expeditions." In matters of money laundering, the transmission may cover all movements of an account involved in the facts under examination (consid. 4.2.1).
It is the responsibility of the person affected by the measure to precisely identify documents that are manifestly irrelevant. They must cooperate in the sorting of documents, as the appellate authority is not required to search for documents potentially unrelated to the criminal proceedings on its own motion (consid. 4.2.2).
Application to the specific case
The Federal Criminal Court (TPF) finds that the facts set out in the German request contain no manifest contradictions or gaps. The suspicious banking transactions have been confirmed, and B., a defendant in Germany, is also an associate, manager, and controlling party of A. GmbH. There is therefore an objective and sufficient link between the Swiss account and the money laundering investigation (consid. 4.4).
The full transmission of bank statements, account opening documents, and bank correspondence is justified in order to reconstruct financial flows, identify beneficial owners, and determine individual responsibilities. The fact that some information might be obtained through other means does not negate its potential utility. Similarly, limiting the transmission to only those transactions already known to the German authorities would compromise the objective of the investigation. The appellant has not identified any documents that are manifestly irrelevant (consid. 4.4).
Outcome
The TPF rejects the appeal and the alternative requests in their entirety. It confirms that the transmission of bank documents respects the principle of proportionality, both materially and temporally. The court costs, set at CHF 4,000, are charged to the appellant (consid. 4.4 to 6).