Swiss Supreme Court Dismisses Prosecution Appeal in Aggravated Money Laundering Case

On 24 September 2025, the Swiss Supreme Court dismissed an appeal by the Office of the Attorney General against a former employee of a Swiss bank, who had been largely acquitted of aggravated money laundering charges by the Federal Criminal Court’s Appeals Chamber (Case No. 6B_1180/2023).

The respondent was originally accused of opening bank accounts in 1999 using false client data and, between 2003 and 2012, investing approximately EUR 21.7 million — allegedly of criminal origin — into various projects, in violation of internal anti-money-laundering rules. He was also charged with misappropriating EUR 1 million from the bribery funds he managed. In 2019, the Trial Chamber convicted him of aggravated money laundering. On appeal, the Appeals Chamber largely acquitted him, finding him guilty only of four transactions in 2010. The prosecution sought reinstatement of the broader conviction.

The Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Chamber’s findings on two key grounds.

First, regarding mens rea for the period 1999 to June 2010, the Court confirmed that insurmountable doubts remained as to whether the respondent knew or accepted the possibility that the deposited funds were of criminal origin. Critically, the Court affirmed that a financial intermediary’s failure to comply with due diligence obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act — even where such failures were “superficial, inadequate, and embellishing” — does not by itself establish the dolus eventualis required for a money laundering conviction under Art. 305bis of the Swiss Criminal Code (“SCC”). The threshold between negligent failure to recognise criminal origins and conscious acceptance of that possibility was not crossed.

Second, regarding the actus reus from October 2010 onward, the Court found that the respondent had not personally executed the relevant payment orders after his transfer to the bank’s headquarters, and the indictment — which described active conduct — could not be recast as an omission theory at trial. Merely being the addressee of payment instructions was insufficient to attribute the transactions to him.

This decision reinforces that breaches of AML due diligence do not equate to criminal intent, that indictments in complex financial crime cases must precisely delineate acts from omissions. This decision sets the following principles that practitioners should keep in mind:

Breach of AML due diligence does not equal criminal intent. The most significant principle affirmed by this decision is that a financial intermediary’s failure to comply with due diligence obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act does not, by itself, establish the dolus eventualis required for a money laundering conviction under Art. 305bis SCC. Prosecutors must demonstrate that the accused actually knew, or consciously accepted the possibility, that funds were of criminal origin — mere negligence or carelessness is insufficient.

“Wilful blindness” has limits under Swiss law. Even where the respondent’s due diligence was described as “superficial, inadequate, and embellishing” and he “did not want to know too precisely,” this degree of carelessness was held not to cross the threshold from negligence into dolus eventualis. Swiss law distinguishes between someone who “with some probability assumes” funds are criminal (which suffices) and someone who merely “carelessly fails to recognise” the criminal origin (which does not). Practitioners should note that Swiss law sets this bar higher than some common-law jurisdictions.

Precision in the indictment matters — especially on acts versus omissions. The prosecution charged the respondent with having “approved” certain payment orders, but the Court found the indictment insufficiently precise as to whether this meant an active act or a culpable omission. Since the indictment described active conduct, the prosecution could not fall back on an omission theory at trial. This underscores the importance of carefully drafting indictments in complex financial crime cases where the accused’s role may be indirect.

Personal execution of transactions is key to attribution. Merely being the addressee of payment instructions, or even forwarding an email announcing an incoming fax, was not considered sufficient active involvement to attribute the transactions to the respondent. For compliance officers and prosecutors alike, this highlights the need to trace precisely who physically initiates, signs, or authorises each step in a payment chain.

The Federal Supreme Court applies a high threshold for overturning factual findings. The Court reiterated that it reviews lower-court fact-finding only for arbitrariness, meaning the finding must be “plainly untenable.” The mere possibility of an alternative conclusion is not enough. This reinforces the practical importance of building a strong factual record at the trial and appellate levels, as the Supreme Court will rarely intervene on evidentiary matters.