FPC, 10.02.2026, RR.2026.6
Facts
As part of an international mutual legal assistance procedure, Indian authorities submitted a letter rogatory to Switzerland requesting the disclosure of banking information. The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Geneva (MP-GE), acting as the executing authority, ordered the seizure of documentation relating to a bank account held by the company A. DMCC.
On December 12, 2025, the MP-GE issued a closing decision ordering the transmission of the seized documents to India. The company A. DMCC filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FPC) on January 14, 2026.
Having doubts regarding the very existence of the appellant company and the authority of its representative, the Appeals Chamber granted A. DMCC a deadline of February 2, 2026, to pay an advance on costs of CHF 5,000 and to produce recent documents attesting to its legal existence at the time the appeal was filed, as well as the validity of its representative's power of attorney. The Court explicitly warned the appellant that failure to provide these items within the deadline would result in the appeal being declared inadmissible.
The company paid the advance on costs and submitted various documents within the allotted time.
Law
The Appeals Chamber first recalls the legal framework for mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and India, which is primarily governed by the Exchange of Letters of February 20, 1989. Domestic law, namely the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC), applies subsidiarily for matters not addressed by the agreement or when it is more favorable to mutual assistance.
Regarding procedure, the Court refers to the Federal Act on Administrative Procedure (APA), which applies by reference.Art. 52 APA requires that an appeal brief contain requests, grounds, and a signature. In the event of a formal defect, the authority may grant a short deadline to rectify the filing, failing which it may be declared inadmissible.
More specifically, when the authority has doubts regarding the existence of a legal entity or the powers of its representative, it may require clarifications and the production of documents (Art. 11 para. 2 APA). Parties are subject to a duty to cooperate (Art. 13 APA), the violation of which may lead to the inadmissibility of their submission.
The Court emphasizes that the principle of speed (Art. 17a IMAC) is of particular importance in matters of mutual assistance. Consequently, a party—especially when represented by counsel—is expected to file a complete appeal from the outset, including the necessary evidence of its existence and capacity to act, particularly in the case of a foreign company.
Finally, the case law of the Federal Supreme Court (judgment 1C_38/2022) confirms that if documents provided after an initial request for regularization remain insufficient, the appellate authority is not required to grant an additional deadline, particularly in mutual assistance proceedings where the party is assisted by a professional representative.
Application to the present case
The Complaints Chamber examined the documents provided by A. DMCC in response to its request for regularization. The appellant explained that it had been placed into liquidation in 2024 by its sole shareholder and that a certain C. had been appointed as liquidator. It produced a power of attorney signed by the latter, his identification, and documents relating to the liquidation dated late 2024.
However, the Court noted a fatal flaw: the only official document attesting to the existence of A. DMCC, an extract from the commercial register ("Authentication"), is dated July 3, 2023. This document predates the liquidation and cannot in any way be considered "recent" within the meaning of the Court's request, which aimed to prove the company's existence in January 2026, at the time the appeal was filed.
The documents provided therefore fail to establish that A. DMCC, although in liquidation, still legally existed at the time it filed its appeal. The appellant, assisted by a lawyer, failed to fulfill its duty to cooperate by not producing a recent and relevant certificate of existence.
In accordance with established case law, the Court finds that there is no reason to grant an additional deadline to rectify this deficiency. As the documents are insufficient to prove the appellant's capacity to act, an essential condition of admissibility is missing.
Outcome
The Complaints Chamber declares the appeal inadmissible.
The procedural costs, set at CHF 1,000, are to be borne by the appellant. This amount shall be deducted from the advance payment of CHF 5,000 already made, and the remaining balance of CHF 4,000 shall be refunded.
Silex newsletter published in collaboration with Elisabetta Tizzoni
