Banks in the dock: corporate liability before the Federal Criminal Court

Why the bank cases matter

Article 102 SCC makes an undertaking criminally liable for certain offences committed within it, including money laundering and bribery, if it failed to take all reasonable organizational measures required to prevent them. Chapter G.III explained the provision and its application in the Ticino context. Most corporate cases are settled by penalty order, as the previous section showed. Those that go to trial have been decided in Bellinzona with mixed outcomes. The court has convicted banks at first instance, the Appeals Chamber has acquitted several of them, and the Federal Supreme Court has twice sent the most prominent case back. For banks in Lugano, Geneva and Zurich these judgments are the most authoritative guidance available on what the law requires of their organization and on the proof the prosecution must bring.

The Credit Suisse cocaine case, 2022 to 2026

The first trial of a major Swiss bank under Article 102 SCC ended on 27 June 2022. The Criminal Chamber convicted Credit Suisse of failing to prevent the laundering of assets belonging to a Bulgarian criminal organization that trafficked cocaine and laundered its proceeds between May 2005 and January 2009. It fined the bank CHF 2 million, imposed a compensatory claim of more than CHF 19 million for assets that could no longer be confiscated and confiscated more than CHF 12 million from accounts of the organization. A former employee of Credit Suisse was convicted of money laundering and sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment, suspended. Two Bulgarian nationals and a former employee of another Swiss bank were also convicted.¹

The appeal proceedings took an unusual course. The former Credit Suisse employee died in April 2023. In a judgment of 26 November 2024, published the following day, the Appeals Chamber separated her case in order to discontinue it and acquitted UBS, which had absorbed Credit Suisse by merger in May 2024. It reasoned that examining the bank's liability would amount to a finding of guilt against a deceased person who could no longer defend herself and would violate her presumption of innocence.² The case then went to the Federal Supreme Court. On 6 January 2025 the Federal Supreme Court annulled the separation and required the Appeals Chamber to decide the appeal of the deceased employee together with those of the co-defendants. On 7 July 2025 it annulled a further judgment of the Appeals Chamber of 6 February 2025 and remanded the case once more.³ In its new judgment of 3 March 2026 the Appeals Chamber discontinued the proceedings against the deceased employee, acquitted UBS of the charge under Article 102(2) SCC and lifted the financial sanctions imposed on the bank. It confirmed in part the convictions of two co-defendants and reduced their sentences because of the time elapsed and procedural violations. The judgment could be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court and was not final.⁴

The case raises a question of principle. Article 102(2) SCC makes the undertaking liable irrespective of the liability of natural persons. Yet the liability presupposes that an offence was committed within the undertaking. The Appeals Chamber held that this could not be established against a deceased employee without infringing her rights. Chapter G.III recorded that an appeal by the OAG had been reported in March 2025. The further course shows how difficult corporate criminal proceedings become when they last close to two decades after the facts and when the individuals concerned die or disappear.

Notes

1. Federal Criminal Court, press release on judgment SK.2020.62, 27 June 2022, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2022/2022-06-27/1275.html. ↩
2. Federal Criminal Court, press release on judgment CA.2023.20, 27 November 2024, listed at https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2024.html; summarized in the press release on CA.2025.17 (below). ↩
3. Federal Criminal Court, press release on judgment CA.2025.17, 4 March 2026, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2026/2026-03-04/1543.html (citing Federal Supreme Court judgments 7B_489/2024 of 6 January 2025 and 6B_227/2025 of 7 July 2025). ↩
4. Federal Criminal Court, press release on CA.2025.17 (above). ↩

For general information only. This article does not constitute legal or tax advice, does not replace advice on an individual case and creates no lawyer-client relationship. It reflects the legal position as of August 2025.