SWITZERLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Roman Huber, Cristina Ess and Lea Ruckstuhl, Kellerhals Carrard
million and a claim for restitution in the amount of approximately CHF82.3 million (corresponds to a portion of the profit that the GUNVOR group was able to generate thanks to the corrupt con - tracts). SECO Case In September 2021, the FCC in Bellinzona sen - tenced a former SECO employee to four years and four months’ imprisonment. The criminal division found the former SECO employee guilty of multiple forgeries of official documents and multiple taking of bribes. The bribery affair came to light in 2014 and is regarded as one of the biggest cases of corruption within the federal administration. The then-head of department at SECO had awarded overpriced IT contracts from 2004 to 2014 and received money, VIP football tickets and travel invitations in return. IT contracts worth almost CHF100 million were involved. In return, the former civil servant allegedly received benefits totalling more than CHF1.7 million. Three co-accused entrepre - neurs, whose companies had profited from the contracts, received conditional prison sentences of up to 22 months and fines. Relevant Federal Supreme Court Decision Regarding Sealing and Attorney–Client Confidentiality (7B_153/2023 From 6 August 2024) The Public Prosecutor of the Canton of Zurich conducted a criminal proceeding against per - sons unknown on suspicion of violating the Federal Act against Unfair Competition (UWG). In order to secure evidence, the public prosecu - tor’s office issued an order requiring the compa - ny involved to hand over an investigation report and other relevant documents connected to an internal investigation. The company complied with the order, but submitted the documents with a request for them to be sealed. A key point
of contention was whether fact-finding was con - sidered a typical legal activity which is covered by the attorney–client privilege. The Federal Supreme Court affirmed that the attorney–client privilege ensures the protection of client confi - dentiality and is not limited to representation in court, but also extends to all typical legal activi - ties such as legal advice and the preparation of legal documents. The lower court ruled that the documents that were the subject of the appeal were created in the course of legal work and were therefore protected by attorney–client confidentiality. The OAG argued that these documents did not constitute typical legal work, but the Federal Supreme Court rejected this and affirmed the protection of attorney–client confidentiality in the case at hand. Another point of contention was whether evidence that already existed before the legal advice was given lost its protection by being included in the attorney–client correspondence. The Federal Supreme Court ruled that as long as the information arose in the confidential relation - ship between client and attorney, it remains pro - tected by the attorney–client privilege, even if it had previously existed in other contexts. Finally, the question was also discussed as to whether the disclosure of information to third parties (in this case, FINMA) affects the confidential nature of the attorney–client correspondence. The Fed - eral Supreme Court clarified that information vol - untarily disclosed to third parties is not automati - cally considered to be generally known and that the client’s intention of confidentiality remains. Overall, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the public prosecutor’s appeal was unfounded and that the lower court had acted lawfully in its decision not to unseal the documents.
446 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook