Supervisory practice and enforcement

FINMA’s approach

FINMA supervises the anti-money-laundering compliance of the institutions under its direct supervision through audits, on-site reviews, supervisory reviews and, where it finds serious breaches, enforcement proceedings. It has no power to impose fines on institutions. Its instruments are declaratory findings of breach, orders to restore compliance, confiscation of profits, restrictions on business activity, the appointment of an independent third party to monitor compliance, prohibitions on individuals from acting in management positions and, in the most serious cases, the withdrawal of the licence. The absence of a fining power has been a subject of debate since the collapse of Credit Suisse, which Part G describes. In 2025 FINMA concluded 55 enforcement proceedings, compared with 38 in 2024, and carried out 113 on-site reviews at banks. Its staff rose from 554 to 617 full-time positions.¹

Leading cases

The enforcement cases of the past decade show the kinds of failure that FINMA sanctions. In February 2018 FINMA concluded its proceedings against Gazprombank (Switzerland) Ltd, a Zurich subsidiary of the Russian Gazprombank, after the Panama Papers. FINMA found serious deficiencies in the bank’s anti-money-laundering system in private client business between 2006 and 2016. The bank had failed adequately to clarify the background of business relationships and transactions with increased risk, had categorised risks incorrectly or late, documented poorly and reported suspicions to MROS late. FINMA prohibited the bank from accepting new private clients, required a risk committee with a majority of independent members and appointed an audit agent to monitor the measures.² The case had a criminal sequel in Zurich. In March 2023 the Zurich District Court convicted four former employees of Gazprombank Switzerland of lack of due diligence in financial transactions under Article 305ter SCC in connection with accounts of the Russian cellist Sergei Roldugin, a friend of President Putin. The High Court of the canton of Zurich upheld the convictions in June 2024, with suspended fines totalling more than CHF 450,000.³

On the same day in 2018 FINMA concluded proceedings against PKB Privatbank SA of Lugano in connection with the Petrobras and Odebrecht corruption cases. It found inadequate background clarifications, failures to report, incomplete documentation and ignored warnings from the internal IT monitoring system between 2010 and 2015. It also confiscated CHF 1.3 million of unlawfully generated profits.⁴ The criminal consequences came later. In March 2024 the Office of the Attorney General convicted PKB by summary penalty order under Article 102 SCC and fined it CHF 750,000, because between 2011 and 2014 it had failed to take the reasonable organisational measures required to prevent aggravated money laundering by two employees.⁵

Julius Bär, the largest of the Zurich private banking groups outside the former big banks, was the subject of the most prominent FINMA case involving a Zurich institution. On 20 February 2020 FINMA found that the bank had systematically failed to comply with its due diligence obligations between 2009 and early 2018, in particular in connection with the Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA and with FIFA. KYC documentation was incomplete or ambiguous for most of the relationships audited. In one instance a transaction of CHF 70 million for a Venezuelan client had been carried out without the required clarifications. FINMA also criticised a remuneration system focused almost exclusively on financial targets. It ordered the bank to identify high-risk client advisers, reform remuneration and disciplinary rules, establish a board committee for conduct and compliance and refrain from large acquisitions until compliance was restored. An independent third party monitored the measures.⁶ FINMA lifted the ban on complex acquisitions on 1 April 2021.⁷

Two more recent cases show the continuing relevance of the subject. In June 2023 FINMA concluded proceedings against the Geneva bank Mirabaud, which the Federal Supreme Court allowed it to publish in September 2024. FINMA found that the bank had inadequately clarified and documented the economic background of relationships that at times accounted for about ten per cent of its assets. It confiscated CHF 12.7 million in profits.⁸ The most drastic recent case concerned a Zurich bank. On 27 February 2026 the liquidation of MBaer Merchant Bank AG became final after the bank withdrew its appeal against FINMA’s order withdrawing its licence. FINMA had found serious and systematic deficiencies: eighty per cent of the business relationships carried increased risks, the bank had repeatedly ignored its compliance function, had failed to report or reported late and had enabled clients to circumvent official asset freezes, including transactions for sanctioned persons. The bank held about CHF 4.9 billion of client assets in some 700 relationships. On the day before, the United States Financial Crimes Enforcement Network had proposed measures against the bank under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act.⁹

Corporate criminal liability: the Credit Suisse case

The criminal courts have been more hesitant than FINMA. The first criminal conviction of a major Swiss bank for money laundering came on 27 June 2022, when the Criminal Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court convicted Credit Suisse under Article 102 paragraph 2 SCC in connection with a Bulgarian cocaine trafficking organisation whose funds had passed through the bank between 2004 and 2008.¹⁰ The case then took a long procedural route. After two decisions of the Federal Supreme Court on procedural orders, in January and July 2025, the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court acquitted UBS as legal successor of Credit Suisse on 3 March 2026. It held that the bank’s alleged organisational failure could not be examined without violating the presumption of innocence of a co-accused who had died in April 2023 and against whom the proceedings had therefore been terminated. A former bank employee was convicted for part of the period with a conditional sentence of four and a half months, while the charges for the earlier period ended in acquittal or were time-barred.¹¹ The outcome shows the limits of Article 102 SCC as a tool against large institutions. Proceedings can end close to two decades after the facts, by which time the individuals whose conduct triggers corporate liability may have died or benefit from limitation, while mergers raise questions of succession.

Notes

1. swissinfo.ch, “Swiss financial regulator significantly more active in 2025”, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/various/finma-closes-significantly-more-proceedings-in-2025/91289905. ↩
2. FINMA, “FINMA concludes Panama Papers proceedings against Gazprombank Switzerland”, media release, 1 February 2018, https://www.finma.ch/de/news/2018/02/20180201-mm-gazprombank-schweiz/. FINMA had examined more than thirty banks after the Panama Papers disclosures, about twenty of them in detail. ↩
3. swissinfo.ch, “Swiss court upholds ‘Putin’s bankers’ Gazprom conviction”, 25 June 2024, https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/banking-fintech/swiss-court-upholds-putins-bankers-gazprom-conviction/81749294. The court considered the passive acceptance of the explanation that the funds were Roldugin’s wages and loans implausible. ↩
4. FINMA, “FINMA concludes proceedings against PKB”, media release, 1 February 2018, https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2018/02/20180201-mm-pkb/. FINMA had already concluded proceedings against BSI and Banque Heritage in the same complex in 2016. ↩
5. Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland, “PKB PRIVATBANK SA convicted for corporate liability in connection with aggravated money laundering”, media release, 28 March 2024, https://www.admin.ch/gov/en/start/documentation/media-releases.msg-id-100600.html. ↩
6. FINMA, “Serious AML failings at Julius Baer”, media release, 20 February 2020, https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2020/02/20200220-mm-jb/. ↩
7. WealthBriefing, “Regulator Lifts Acquisitions Ban On Julius Baer”, https://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php/regulator-lifts-acquisitions-ban-on-julius-baer. ↩
8. finews.com, “Finma Tightens the Reins on Mirabaud Bank”, https://www.finews.com/news/english-news/64390-finma-mirabaud-geldwaescherei-robert-brockman-steuerhinterziehung-enforcementverfahren-2. The report connects the case with the American businessman Robert Brockman, who was charged with tax evasion in the United States and died in 2022. ↩
9. FINMA, “FINMA proceedings: MBaer Merchant Bank AG in liquidation”, media release, 27 February 2026, https://www.finma.ch/en/news/2026/02/20260227-mm-mbaer-liquidation/. FINMA opened four proceedings against individuals. ↩
10. OCCRP, “Swiss Court Convicts Credit Suisse Over Laundering Drug Money”, June 2022, https://www.occrp.org/en/news/swiss-court-convicts-credit-suisse-over-laundering-drug-money. The report states that the court ordered fines and compensation of CHF 21 million in total and the confiscation of more than CHF 12 million. ↩
11. Federal Criminal Court, media release on judgment CA.2025.17 of 3 March 2026, https://www.bstger.ch/de/media/comunicati-stampa/2026/2026-03-04/1543.html. The release refers to the first-instance judgment SK.2020.62 of 27 June 2022 and to the Federal Supreme Court judgments 7B_489/2024 of 6 January 2025 and 6B_227/2025 of 7 July 2025. ↩

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 September 2025.