Switzerland's New Stalking Offence (article 181b SCC): What Businesses, In‑house Counsel and Executives Must Know

On 1 January 2026, stalking law Switzerland changed fundamentally. Article 181b of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC), titled Nachstellung (obsessive harassment), entered into force, making stalking a standalone criminal offence for the first time in Swiss legal history. The provision closes a long‑standing gap that had forced prosecutors to rely on a patchwork of lesser charges such as coercion, threats or trespass. For general counsel, HR directors, security teams and platform operators, the new stalking offence 2026 creates immediate compliance obligations: workplace policies must be updated, internal investigation protocols reviewed, and cross‑border evidence‑preservation procedures stress‑tested against the new framework.

This article delivers a practical, section‑by‑section guide to every dimension of the law that affects organisations and individuals operating in or connected to Switzerland.

What Article 181b SCC Says, Scope, Elements and Effective Date

Article 181b SCC criminalises repeated conduct that constitutes obsessive harassment (Nachstellung), effective 1 January 2026, following the Federal Council’s decision of 19 November 2025 setting the commencement date. The provision sits within the section of the Swiss Criminal Code dealing with offences against personal freedom, directly after the existing articles on coercion (Art. 181) and threats (Art. 180).

To secure a conviction under Article 181b SCC, the prosecution must establish the following elements:

1. Repeated conduct. A single isolated act will not suffice. The law requires a pattern of behaviour, multiple acts directed at the same person over time.
2. Unwanted contact or pursuit. The conduct must be uninvited. Typical statutory examples include following, surveillance, making contact, and making threats against the victim or persons close to the victim.
3. Impact on the victim. The repeated behaviour must cause the affected person serious alarm, fear for their safety, or a substantial impairment of their way of life.

The offence is prosecuted ex officio (von Amtes wegen) in its basic form, meaning Swiss authorities can initiate proceedings without a formal complaint from the victim. Industry observers expect this procedural feature to increase reporting rates and to make the offence particularly relevant for employers and platforms, since third‑party reports or media coverage can trigger an investigation independently of the victim’s wishes.

What this means for businesses: From 1 January 2026, any employee, contractor or agent whose repeated conduct meets the statutory threshold can expose both themselves and, in certain circumstances, their employer to criminal proceedings, civil claims and reputational harm.

What Conduct Counts as Stalking Under Swiss Law, Examples and Red Flags

The Swiss criminal code stalking provision covers a broad spectrum of offline and online behaviour, provided the conduct is repeated and produces the required impact on the victim. Municipal guidance issued by the City of Zurich and victim‑support organisations such as the DAO Frauenhäuser Schweiz offer practical illustrations that are directly relevant to corporate risk assessments.

Offline Conduct

Classic offline stalking scenarios with corporate relevance include a terminated employee repeatedly appearing at the former workplace or a client’s premises; an executive being physically followed by a disgruntled business counterpart; and the sending of unwanted letters, gifts or packages to a colleague’s home or office address. Threats, whether direct or implied, made during in‑person encounters strengthen the case for prosecution, but Article 181b does not require explicit threats. Persistent physical presence alone, when repeated and distressing, may satisfy the statutory elements.

Online Conduct

Cross‑border online harassment Switzerland cases are expected to comprise a growing share of Article 181b prosecutions. Relevant digital behaviours include persistent direct messaging via corporate or personal channels, doxxing (publishing private details such as home addresses or personal telephone numbers), repeated unwanted tagging on social media, and geo‑tracking through shared devices or covertly installed applications. For platform operators and tech companies, the breadth of the online dimension creates both reporting obligations and data‑preservation duties that did not previously exist in the same form under Swiss criminal law.

Patterns, Thresholds and the Repetition Requirement

A single strongly worded email, however unpleasant, will not ordinarily reach the Article 181b threshold. The law requires a pattern. The likely practical effect will be that cantonal prosecutors look for at least several discrete acts spread over a discernible period, assessed cumulatively. The victim’s subjective experience of fear or distress must be objectively reasonable in the circumstances. Early indications suggest that courts will adopt a totality‑of‑conduct approach, weighing the frequency, escalation trajectory and content of the acts together rather than evaluating each in isolation.

Penalties for Stalking in Switzerland, Criminal and Civil Consequences

A conviction under Article 181b SCC can result in a custodial sentence of up to three years or a monetary penalty. Aggravated forms, for example, cases involving threats to life or serious bodily harm, may attract higher sanctions under concurrently applicable provisions. Courts can also order protective measures including contact bans and exclusion zones.

Beyond criminal sanctions, victims may pursue civil claims for damages and injunctive relief. The combination of criminal prosecution and parallel civil proceedings creates a dual‑track exposure that organisations must factor into risk planning.

What this means for businesses: The penalties for stalking Switzerland now imposes are significant, custodial sentences are not merely theoretical. Organisations should treat any credible allegation as a material legal and reputational risk from the outset.

Employer Obligations and Risk Areas, Stalking Law Switzerland in the Workplace

Employer obligations stalking scenarios create extend beyond individual criminal liability to encompass duty‑of‑care and employment‑law exposure. The following sub‑sections set out the key compliance areas.

Workplace Policies and Prevention

Every employer operating in Switzerland should now maintain a written anti‑harassment and anti‑stalking policy that explicitly references Article 181b SCC. The policy should define stalking conduct with examples (online and offline), set out the reporting procedure, identify the responsible internal contact (typically HR or compliance), and confirm that violations may result in disciplinary action up to summary dismissal. Training sessions, at least annually, should be delivered to all staff, with additional targeted briefings for managers and executives who supervise client‑facing or high‑risk roles.

Duty to Act on Complaints, Balancing Confidentiality and Investigation

Once a complaint is received, the employer is legally obligated under Swiss employment law (Article 328 of the Code of Obligations) to take reasonable protective measures. Failing to investigate a credible allegation or ignoring warning signs may expose the organisation to civil liability for breach of its duty of care. At the same time, the rights of the accused, including data‑protection rights under the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection (FADP), must be respected. Striking this balance requires early engagement of legal counsel.

Discipline, Termination and Reputational Risk

Where an internal investigation confirms conduct meeting the Article 181b threshold, employers may be justified in terminating the employment for cause without notice under Article 337 of the Code of Obligations. However, premature termination before the facts are established carries wrongful‑dismissal risk. Reputational exposure, especially for publicly listed companies or regulated entities, demands a coordinated communications strategy alongside the legal response.

Internal Investigations When an Employee Is Accused, Practical Checklist

A structured internal investigation is essential for protecting the organisation, preserving evidence and ensuring due process. The checklist below reflects best practice under Swiss criminal and employment law as applied to stalking allegations under Article 181b SCC.

1. Intake and triage (Day 0–1). Receive and document the complaint in writing. Assess immediate risk to the complainant. Engage external criminal counsel if the facts suggest potential Article 181b exposure.
2. Preservation of electronically stored information (ESI) (Day 0–3). Issue a litigation hold notice covering all relevant devices, email accounts, messaging platforms and access logs. Instruct IT to suspend automatic data‑deletion routines for the individuals involved.
3. Notification and suspension assessment (Day 1–5). Decide whether the accused should be suspended during the investigation. This is not automatic, assess the severity of the allegations, the risk of evidence spoliation, and any ongoing threat to the complainant. Document the rationale in writing.
4. Witness statements (Day 3–14). Interview the complainant, the accused and any relevant witnesses separately. Record statements in writing, with each interviewee confirming accuracy by signature.
5. Forensic and digital analysis (Day 5–21). Where online conduct is alleged, engage a forensic specialist to capture and authenticate digital evidence (screenshots, metadata, login records). Ensure the chain of custody is maintained.
6. Data protection compliance (ongoing). Processing personal data during an investigation must comply with the FADP. Inform data subjects of the processing, limit access to need‑to‑know personnel, and document the legal basis for each processing activity (typically the employer’s overriding legitimate interest).
7. Employee representative / works council notification (if applicable). In workplaces with a staff commission or employee representation, assess whether the applicable collective agreement or legal framework requires notification.
8. Findings report and decision (Day 14–30). Produce a confidential findings report. Decide on disciplinary action, referral to law enforcement, or both. Notify the complainant of the outcome within the bounds of confidentiality obligations.

What this means for businesses: Speed matters. Digital evidence can be deleted or altered rapidly. Engaging specialist criminal counsel within the first 24–48 hours is the single most effective step an organisation can take to protect its position.

Platforms and Service Providers, Takedown, Preservation and Cooperation

Technology platforms, social media companies and cloud service providers operating in Switzerland face distinct obligations when stalking‑related content or conduct is reported. The following steps represent current best practice under the stalking law Switzerland framework.

• Notice and takedown. Upon receiving a credible report of content facilitating stalking (e.g., doxxed personal details, threatening messages), platforms should assess and, where appropriate, remove or restrict access to the content. Speed is critical, delays can exacerbate harm and increase the platform’s civil exposure.
• Preservation orders and legal holds. Swiss prosecutors and victims’ legal representatives may issue preservation requests for account data, communications logs and IP records. Platforms should maintain documented procedures for processing these requests within 24–72 hours.
• Emergency disclosure requests. In cases involving imminent threat to life or physical safety, Swiss law enforcement may submit emergency requests outside the formal mutual legal assistance process. Platforms should have a dedicated emergency response pathway.
• FADP compliance. Any disclosure of user data must satisfy the requirements of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection. Where the platform also operates under the EU GDPR, it must reconcile both frameworks, a task that frequently requires specialist data‑protection advice.

For multinational cloud providers, the interplay between Swiss domestic law, the FADP and international data‑transfer mechanisms (such as Standard Contractual Clauses) adds a further compliance layer. Early legal analysis of the platform’s specific data architecture is essential.

Cross‑Border Evidence and Enforcement, MLA, Preservation Orders and Practical Steps

Cross‑border online harassment Switzerland cases frequently involve evidence located outside Swiss jurisdiction, on servers operated by foreign technology companies or in the possession of foreign nationals. The formal mechanism for obtaining such evidence is mutual legal assistance (MLA), governed in Switzerland principally by the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) and bilateral or multilateral treaties.

A critical constraint is Article 271 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which prohibits foreign authorities from carrying out official acts on Swiss territory without authorisation. Foreign investigators cannot, for example, directly serve preservation requests on Swiss‑based entities without going through the MLA channel. Violations of this provision are themselves criminal offences.

Practical tip: Because formal MLA requests can take many months, practitioners routinely issue voluntary preservation letters to service providers at the very start of a case. These letters, typically addressed to the provider’s legal or law‑enforcement response team, request that specified data be preserved for a defined period while the formal legal process is pursued. Industry observers expect the volume of such preservation letters linked to Article 181b cases to rise materially throughout 2026.

Defences, Mitigation and Corporate Legal Strategy

Defending an allegation under Article 181b SCC requires careful analysis of each statutory element. Potential defence strategies include the following:

• Lack of repetition. If the conduct consisted of a single act or a very small number of contacts, the pattern element may not be met.
• Consent or mutual engagement. Where contact was mutual, for example, both parties were exchanging messages, the “unwanted” element may be challenged, though this defence is fact‑sensitive and often contested.
• Mistaken identity or attribution. In online cases, establishing that the accused was the actual author of the relevant communications may require forensic verification.
• Insufficient impact. If the complainant cannot demonstrate serious alarm, fear or substantial impairment of daily life, the impact threshold may not be satisfied.

For executives facing allegations, early engagement of experienced criminal counsel is essential, both to protect privilege and to explore pre‑trial resolution options, including mediation or negotiated agreements with the complainant. During internal investigations, organisations should be alert to legal professional privilege: communications with external counsel for the purpose of obtaining legal advice are protected, but internal documents created primarily for business purposes may not be.

Quick Compliance Checklist, 30‑ and 90‑Day Action Plan for Organisations

Organisations operating in Switzerland should treat the following checklist as a minimum response to the stalking offence 2026 framework.

Immediate actions (0–30 days)

1. Audit existing anti‑harassment and code‑of‑conduct policies for Article 181b coverage. Add explicit definitions and examples of stalking (online and offline).
2. Designate a named internal point of contact for stalking complaints (HR lead or compliance officer).
3. Issue a litigation‑hold template and evidence‑preservation protocol for use in urgent cases.
4. Brief the executive team and board (where applicable) on the new offence, corporate exposure and escalation procedure.
5. Compile a short‑list of external criminal counsel and forensic specialists who can be engaged at short notice.

Near‑term actions (31–90 days)

1. Deliver mandatory training on recognising and reporting stalking to all managers and client‑facing teams.
2. Review employment contracts and termination templates to ensure alignment with the updated policy.
3. For platform operators: test the end‑to‑end preservation and takedown workflow against a simulated Article 181b scenario.
4. Assess cross‑border evidence‑preservation readiness, particularly for data held by non‑Swiss cloud providers.
5. Schedule a six‑month policy review to incorporate early case law and prosecutorial guidance as it develops.

Conclusion

The introduction of Article 181b SCC marks a watershed moment for stalking law Switzerland. For the first time, Swiss prosecutors have a dedicated criminal tool to address obsessive harassment, and the law’s ex officio prosecution model means organisations cannot assume that silence from a victim equates to safety from proceedings. General counsel, HR directors and compliance teams should act now: update policies, train staff, prepare evidence‑preservation protocols and identify trusted external criminal counsel. Early preparation is significantly less costly, financially and reputationally, than reactive crisis management. Organisations seeking tailored advice can consult qualified Swiss criminal lawyers through the Global Law Experts lawyer directory.

Sources

1. Federal Chancellery, admin.ch press release (Federal Council decision)
2. Swiss Federal Law (fedlex), Swiss Criminal Code (Article 181b)
3. Stach Rechtsanwälte AG, firm alert
4. Borel Barbey, firm commentary
5. SWI swissinfo.ch, national news summary
6. DAO Frauenhäuser Schweiz, victim‑support guidance
7. Stadt Zürich, local authority guidance
8. Bär & Karrer, cross‑border evidence and Article 271 guidance