LIECHTENSTEIN Law and Practice Contributed by: Simon Ott, Andreas Vogel, Husmira Halis and Felix Bayer, Schurti Partners Attorneys at Law Ltd
2.6 Prosecution Once the facts of the case have been fully estab - lished, the Prosecution Service must decide whether the perpetrator should be indicted. If it concludes that the probability of a conviction is more than 50%, it is required to file an indictment. In assessing the prob - ability of a conviction, both reasons for discontinu - ation of the proceedings (eg, legal reasons against prosecuting the accused) and reasons for withdrawal from the proceedings (eg, by means of applying a “diversion” – see 2.7 Deferred Prosecution ) must be taken into consideration by the Prosecution Service. The accused has the right to object to the indictment within 14 days upon service to the Princely Court of Appeal. An objection is, for example, granted and the indictment rejected, if: • the indictment lacks the necessary form; • the facts of the case have not sufficiently been clarified; or • there are circumstances that abolish criminal liabil - ity (eg, active repentance) or preclude prosecution (eg, the prosecution is time-barred). According to the Liechtenstein Criminal Procedure Code, the Prosecution Service may refrain from pros - ecuting a legal entity if certain prerequisites are met. This includes, inter alia, that prosecuting and sanc - tioning the legal entity seems dispensable in view of the seriousness of the predicate offence, the con - sequences of the offence, the weight of the lack of organisation, the conduct of the legal entity after the offence (in particular, restitution for damage or the extent of the co-operation), the expected amount of the corporate fine to be imposed on the legal entity and any legal disadvantages already suffered by or imminent for the legal entity or its owners as a result of the offence. Further, the Prosecution Service may also refrain from prosecuting a legal entity if inquiries or applications for prosecution lead to substantial efforts that would obviously be disproportionate to the significance of the matter or to the expected sanctions in the event of conviction. In any event, prosecution must not be refrained from:
liquidating frozen virtual assets prematurely if there is a threat of unforeseeable price losses in view of these assets’ high volatility. 2.4 Use of Technology in Investigations As of the time of writing, AI or advanced digital tools are not being used by law enforcement authorities in white-collar investigations. The main reason for this is that the use of available AI or advanced digital tools would violate the obligation of official secrecy because classified information would be made availa - ble to third parties (ie, the providers of AI or advanced digital tools). 2.5 Internal Investigations In principle, legal entities are not legally obliged to conduct internal investigations and no such laws exist in Liechtenstein (including no laws as to how to con - duct internal investigations). However, the conduct of such investigations on a voluntary basis may have var - ious advantages because offences may be detected before the Prosecution Service initiates investigations and therefore steps can be taken in order to avoid prosecution (for example, voluntary disclosure in criminal tax law). Further, internal investigations appear to be highly advisable in the event that a legal entity becomes aware of an alleged crime committed by one of its employees or directors. Such a crime committed by an employee or director can trigger criminal liabilities of the entity itself. The Prosecution Service can refrain or withdraw from prosecuting a legal entity, if the latter, inter alia, is spe - cifically co-operative with the investigation authori - ties (see 2.6 Prosecution ). Conducting an internal investigation and sharing its results on the possible criminal conduct of employees or directors with the investigation authorities is considered as an example of co-operative behaviour. Even if the prosecutor does not decide to refrain from prosecuting the legal entity, providing the investigative authorities with the results of an internal investigation can at least constitute a mitigating factor in the case of a conviction of the legal entity.
181 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook