FCTC, 07.16.2026, RR.2026.86
Facts
By closing decision of June 10, 2026, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) ordered the transmission to the Kyrgyz authorities of a written report dated May 19, 2026, prepared by B. SA regarding its business relationship with C. Ltd, as well as its annexes. A. appealed to the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (FCTC) (consid. 1-2.1).
A. argued that she had standing to appeal because the documents to be transmitted contained significant personal data concerning her: identity, nationality, identity documents, tax returns, KYC and PEP documents, information regarding her immigration status, and correspondence. She further argued that she was herself being prosecuted in the Kyrgyz criminal proceedings and that she was the beneficial owner of C. Ltd. According to her, the transmission of this information directly affected her rights (consid. 2.2.3).
Law
According toArt. 80h let. b IMAC, any person who is personally and directly affected by a mutual assistance measure and who has a legitimate interest in its cancellation or modification has standing to appeal. This standing is assessed restrictively to ensure the rapid execution of mutual assistance requests. When standing to appeal is not obvious, it is up to the appellant to allege and demonstrate it (consid. 2.2.1).
In banking matters, standing to appeal generally belongs to the account holder concerned by the transmission. Conversely, the mere beneficial owner of an account held by a company is generally not directly affected and therefore does not have standing to appeal. Similarly, being mentioned in seized documents or being the subject of foreign proceedings is not sufficient when the person is not themselves directly affected by a coercive measure or the holder of the seized documents (consid. 2.2.4).
Application to the specific case
The FCTC notes that B. SA was directly concerned as the recipient of the order to produce the documents and the written report. C. Ltd could also be considered concerned as the holder of the banking relationship; however, the banking documents had already been transmitted on the basis of a previous closing decision that had become final, meaning it no longer had a current interest in challenging their transmission (consid. 2.2.2).
On the other hand, A. was neither the holder of the bank account in question, nor the holder of the seized documents, nor directly targeted by a Swiss coercive measure. The fact that her personal data appears in the documents to be transmitted constitutes only an indirect infringement. Her status as the beneficial owner of C. Ltd is also insufficient to grant her standing to appeal (consid. 2.2.4).
The Federal Criminal Court further specifies that the fact that A. is herself being prosecuted in the foreign criminal proceedings changes nothing. Articleart. 21 para. 3 IMAC does not automatically grant standing to appeal to anyone being prosecuted abroad; they must still be personally and directly affected by the mutual assistance measure executed in Switzerland (recitals 2.2.1 and 2.2.4).
Outcome
Due to a lack of standing to appeal, the Federal Criminal Court declares the appeal inadmissible without an exchange of pleadings. The court costs of CHF 500 are charged to the appellant (recitals 3-4).