TPF, 08/11/2026, RR.2026.68
Facts
The Milan Public Prosecutor's Office (Italy) is conducting criminal proceedings for aggravated fraud and money laundering against B. and C.
They are accused of deceiving F., an heir, regarding the true value of her father's estate by leading her to believe there were significant tax and legal debts.
This maneuver allegedly led her to sign a disadvantageous settlement, causing a loss of at least 10 million euros.
The proceeds of the crime were then allegedly reinvested through various shell companies, including some in Switzerland (Fact A).
In this context, the Italian authorities submitted a request for mutual legal assistance to Switzerland, seeking, among other things, the search of the premises of A. SA in Lugano and the seizure of documents.
A. SA became the new trustee of certain trusts previously managed by a company linked to one of the defendants (Facts B, C).
The Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Ticino (MP-TI), acting as the executing authority, carried out the search and seizure of paper and electronic documents on March 5, 2026.
In a closing decision dated April 28, 2026, the MP-TI ordered the transfer of all seized documentation to the Italian authorities (Facts C, D).
On May 28, 2026, A. SA (hereinafter: the appellant) filed an appeal against this decision with the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court, requesting its annulment.
The appellant primarily invokes a violation of the principle of proportionality and the protection of attorney-client privilege and banking secrecy (Fact E).
Law
Mutual legal assistance between Switzerland and Italy is governed by the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (ECMA) and various bilateral agreements, supplemented subsidiarily by Swiss law (IMAC) (consid. 1.2).
The principle of proportionality requires a connection between the requested documents and the foreign investigation.
However, the assessment of the relevance of the information is, in principle, a matter for the requesting authority.
A refusal is only possible if the documents are clearly incapable of advancing the investigation (no "fishing expeditions") (recital 2.1.1).
Case law applies the criterion of potential relevance: the handover is excluded only for evidence that is certainly irrelevant to the foreign proceedings.
In money laundering cases, the transmission of the entire documentation is generally necessary to reconstruct financial flows.
Mutual assistance also aims to collect exculpatory evidence (recital 2.1.1).
The protection of attorney-client privilege (art. 171 CrimPC) only covers typical legal activities (legal advice, legal representation).
Asset management, business management, or board membership activities are not protected by this privilege (recital 2.1.2).
Banking secrecy (including that of asset managers underart. 69 FinIA) does not constitute an obstacle to international mutual legal assistance in criminal matters when the conditions for such assistance are met (recital 2.2).
Application to the specific case
The appellant, as the company subject to the search, has standing to appeal (recital 1.5).
The Court rejects the claim of a violation of the principle of proportionality.
The appellant became the new trustee of trusts previously managed by a company linked to one of the defendants.
This fact alone establishes the potential relevance of the seized documentation for the Italian investigation, which aims to reconstruct complex financial flows.
The sorting of computer data was carried out using keywords related to the individuals and companies involved, in accordance with standard practice.
The transmission of all documents is justified to allow investigators to understand the entire criminal mechanism and to identify any other potential accomplices (recital 2.2).
The Court also rejects the claim of attorney-client privilege.
The documents mentioning attorneys relate solely to trust management.
This activity, which is commercial in nature and could be performed by a simple fiduciary, does not fall under the typical scope of legal practice and is therefore not protected by attorney-client privilege (consideration 2.2).
Finally, the financial institution secrecy (Art. 69 FinIA) invoked by the appellant cannot be used to block judicial assistance.
The transmission of the documents in question (trust amendment deeds, resolutions, etc.) is therefore permissible (consideration 2.2).
Outcome
The Appeals Chamber dismisses the appeal (Ruling 1).
The closure decision by the MP-TI is upheld, and the transmission of the seized documents to the Italian authorities is authorized (consideration 3).
The court costs, set at 5,000 CHF, are to be borne by the appellant (Ruling 2).