TPF, 07.21.2026, RR.2026.62
Facts
Since 2022, the Paris Court of Appeal has been conducting criminal proceedings for aggravated money laundering and receiving stolen goods, notably against B. and C.
In this context, the French authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland on January 12, 2026.
This request sought to obtain banking information, specifically the identity of the holder of an account at Switzerland D. bank, identified by its IBAN (Fact A).
The Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich, acting as the executing authority, initiated proceedings on January 20, 2026, and ordered the bank to produce the complete account opening documents.
The documents, transmitted on February 10, 2026, revealed that the account holder was the company Institut A. SA (Fact B).
After being informed, Institut A. SA consented to the simplified transmission of its identity and UID number, but opposed the release of the other documents (Fact D).
By closing decision dated May 18, 2026, the Public Prosecutor's Office nevertheless ordered the transmission of all account opening documents to the French authorities (Fact E).
On May 21, 2026, Institut A. SA (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court.
It requests that the transmission be limited to its name and UID number, and asks that all other information, particularly the personal data of third parties (employees, agents), be redacted (Fact F).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and France is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and various bilateral and multilateral agreements, supplemented by domestic law (IMAC) (consid. 2.1, 2.2).
The principle of proportionality requires a connection between the requested documents and the foreign investigation.
The assessment of the usefulness of the information is, in principle, the responsibility of the requesting authority.
A refusal is only possible if the documents are clearly unsuitable for advancing the investigation, in which case the request amounts to a "fishing expedition" (consid. 4.2).
Case law applies the criterion of potential relevance: the handover is only excluded for evidence that is certainly of no relevance to the foreign proceedings.
This criterion is applied broadly, as mutual assistance aims not only to prove known facts but also to uncover new ones and identify other individuals involved.
The documents may also serve as exculpatory evidence (recital 4.2).
A party cannot invoke the privacy rights of third parties to oppose a mutual assistance measure.
Standing to appeal on these grounds belongs to the affected third parties themselves (recital 4.4).
Application to the specific case
The appellant, as the holder of the account in question, has standing to appeal against the disclosure of bank documents (recital 3.2).
The appellant argues that the full disclosure of opening documents, without redaction, would violate the principle of proportionality by revealing personal data of third parties (employees, signatories) unrelated to the investigation (recital 4.1).
The Court rejects this claim.
The French investigation concerns a vast money laundering network involving numerous shell companies.
The objective of the mutual assistance request is precisely to track financial flows and identify all individuals and legal entities involved in the network (recitals 4.3, 4.4).
In this context, knowing the identity of persons with disposal authority over the account (beneficial owners, agents, signatories) is potentially relevant to the investigation.
These individuals could be interviewed as witnesses or may prove to be accomplices.
Redacting their names and contact details would deprive the mutual assistance measure of its effectiveness.
The full disclosure of opening documents is therefore justified by the criterion of potential relevance and does not constitute a "fishing expedition" (recital 4.4).
Finally, the Court reiterates that the appellant does not have standing to invoke the privacy rights of its employees or agents.
The claim is therefore also inadmissible on this point (recital 4.4).
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber dismisses the appeal in its entirety (Ruling 1).
The Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office's decision to close the case is upheld, and the transmission of the unredacted opening documents is authorized (recital 5).
The court costs, set at 5,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant (Ruling 2, recital 6).