Sanctions 2026

SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Philippe M. Reich, Kaspar Projer, Samantha Salsench and Anna Zellweger, Baker McKenzie Switzerland AG

3. Recent and Future Legal Developments 3.1 Significant Court Decisions or Legal Developments The last five years have been dominated by the imple - mentation of the EU sanctions packages against Rus - sia into the Swiss sanctions framework. Although case law remains comparatively limited compared to developments in other jurisdictions, the past two years have seen a noticeable increase in sanctions- related case law, including decisions issued by the Federal Administrative Court, which hears appeals against SECO’s penalty orders. As far as the enforcement environment in Switzerland is concerned, reference is made to the section on “Swiss Enforcement Landscape” in the Switzerland Trends and Developments chapter in this guide. The authors wish to draw attention to the following recent judgments. Judgment of 15 October 2025 of the Federal Administrative Court (B-4169/2023) The standard of proof in Article 16 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordinance for the reporting obligations apply - ing to those holding or managing frozen funds Under Article 16 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordi - nance, persons and institutions that hold or manage assets which are presumed to be subject to a freeze pursuant to Article 15 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordinance must report such assets to SECO without delay. Financial institutions holding assets owned or directly or indirectly controlled by designated persons are therefore required to prevent any action that would enable the management or use of such funds. In its judgment of 15 October 2025, the Federal Admin - istrative Court confirmed that a reduced standard of proof applies to reports under Article 16 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordinance, requiring only a certain degree of plausibility. This standard applies exclusive - ly to reporting persons and institutions that have inde - pendently implemented asset-freezing measures on the basis of Article 15 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordi - nance. By contrast, SECO must assess the lawfulness

of asset-freezing measures based on the standard of a preponderance of probability (consideration 5.2.5). Judgment of 2 February 2026 of the Federal Administrative Court (B-3805/2025) The judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of 2 February 2026 focused on the interpretation of the concept of control. The Federal Administrative Court examined whether, as of 2 March 2022, a sanctioned person exercised control within the meaning of Arti - cle 15 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordinance over an incoming payment of USD60 million labelled “Gift to Brother”, and whether SECO had correctly applied the standard of proof of preponderant probability. Definition of “control” according to Article 15 paragraph 1 of the Ukraine Ordinance In the context of sanctions law, where control relation - ships between natural persons are at issue, it must be determined who, at the time of the contested decision, in fact exercises ultimate decision-making authority over the use of the assets concerned. The existence of a control relationship must be assessed in light of the criteria set out in the SECO FAQ (consid - erations 6.3.1.-6.3.2). These criteria are not exhaustive (consideration 7.5). The Federal Administrative Court further noted that the Swiss legislature acknowledges the risk of sanc - tions circumvention through asset transfers occurring immediately before or shortly after a person is sanc - tioned (consideration 7.5.2). On the basis of the various indicia discussed in con - siderations 7.1-7.9), the court concluded that the donation in question constituted an attempt to cir - cumvent sanctions, and that continued de facto con - trol by the sanctioned person over the assets could not be excluded. Activities allowed under the asset freeze The Federal Administrative Court confirmed that mon - itoring measures allowing the use of frozen assets, as an alternative to an asset freeze, would be incom - patible with the fundamental approach of Article 15 paragraph 1 in conjunction with the legal definition set out in Article 1 paragraph b of the Ukraine Ordinance.

266 CHAMBERS.COM