SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Philippe M. Reich, Kaspar Projer, Samantha Salsench and Anna Zellweger, Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG
Following its prior case law, the court held that sanc - tions Ordinances are to be treated as equivalent to the laws reserved in Article 44 DEBA. Consequently, asset freezes imposed under such Ordinances take precedence over enforcement proceedings under the
to influence criminal proceedings conducted under criminal provisions outside sanctions. For instance, in a judgment of 13 June 2024, the Zurich High Court upheld the initial ruling that found the CEO, the client relationship manager and two other members of the management of Gazprombank Switzerland guilty of failing to exercise due diligence in financial transac - tions under Article 305ter of the Swiss Criminal Code. This was due to insufficient measures being imple - mented to clarify beneficial ownership with regard to an account held by a certain Russian client, despite there being indications of straw funding at the time the account was opened and throughout the business relationship. The Federal Supreme Court confirmed the respective convictions (see Judgment of 13 April 2026, 6B_942/2024, 6B_943/2024, 6B_944/2024, Swiss sanctions laws do not expressly acknowledge the voluntary self-disclosure of sanctions violations to SECO. Also, there is no case law available that gives an account of the effect of voluntary self-disclosures on penalties imposed by SECO, such as a discount or uplift. In practice and the experience of the authors over many years, however, voluntary self-disclosure is acknowledged by SECO and has been taken into account as a mitigating factor. Whether such a disclo - sure is warranted or not in a given case depends on many hard and soft factors which should be assessed carefully together with an experienced Swiss sanc - tions expert. 2.2.6 Strict Liability The principle of “strict liability” is not (yet) acknowl - edged under Swiss sanctions. Rather, and as men - tioned in 2.2.2 Breaching Sanctions , the EmbA differs between intentional violations on the one hand and violations caused by negligence on the other hand. 6B_948/2024). 2.2.5 Mitigation According to Article 2 EmbA it is possible to obtain a licence derogation from specific sanctions regula - tions to support humanitarian activities or to safe - guard Swiss interests. Such derogation grounds are regulated in various provisions in the ordinances of the Swiss sanctions regime, for instance in the Ukraine 2.3 Licensing 2.3.1 Derogation
DEBA (see considerations 3.5-3.6). 2.2.4 Criminal Enforcement Action
As mentioned in 2.2.3 Civil Enforcement Action , SECO is responsible for enforcing the various Swiss sanctions regimes. To this end, SECO had opened 77 administrative criminal law proceedings under the Ukraine Ordinance and the Belarus Ordinance until July 2025, and more recent numbers are not available yet. Many of these have been discontinued, but SECO has issued penalty orders in at least 28 cases. SECO has also requested that the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) initiate investigations in at least two cases, as this is permitted for serious offences (Article 14 paragraph 2 EmbA). As per the OAG’s 2024 Annual Report and additional public sources, one case concerns potential circumvention of sanctions on Russia committed by a Swiss commodity trading company through its subsidiaries based in the Gulf States, and the other relates to the circumvention of the asset freeze and the prohibition on making funds available under Article 15 of the Ukraine Ordinance with respect to two sanctioned Russian individuals. The OAG’s 2025 Annual Report does not provide any details on enforcement cases initiated or concluded by the OAG in 2025. The Federal Office of Police (fedpol) also reported in 2025 on an ongoing investigation into money laun - dering in connection with sanctions circumvention, involving a sanctioned Russian oligarch and two front men who, among others, own assets in several Swiss cantons. This led to raids and the seizure of assets held in bank accounts and real estate. Of the less severe offences for which penalty orders have been issued, SECO has almost always fined the legal entity rather than the employees involved and the fines were equal to or less than CHF5,000. When considering the criminal enforcement of sanc - tions, it is also important to consider their potential
264 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook