- within Government and Public Sector topic(s)
- with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries
- within Food, Drugs, Healthcare, Life Sciences, Privacy, Media, Telecoms, IT and Entertainment topic(s)
In its decision of 24 September 2025 (6B_1180/2023), the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court rejected the proposition that repeated
violations of AMLA diligence and reporting duties in principle
("grundsätzlich") imply at least dolus eventualis
for money laundering.
This decision was issued in long‑running criminal proceedings
against a former banker. He faced the accusation of opening
accounts and carrying out transactions involving funds of which he
purportedly knew or accepted the possibility that they originated
from a crime, in this case bribery of foreign public
officials.
Before the second instance court, the accused had been acquitted in
respect of all transactions up to a certain date for lack of intent
provable beyond reasonable doubt. The Office of the Attorney
General of Switzerland appealed the acquittal before the Swiss
Federal Supreme Court, arguing inter alia that the lower court
wrongly refused to infer at least dolus eventualis from repeated
breaches of AMLA diligence and reporting duties.
The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that
repeated breaches under AMLA cannot substitute proof of mens rea
for money laundering. The decisive question remains whether the
accused knew or at least accepted that the assets were the proceeds
of a crime. It was not arbitrary to consider that compliance
failures alone were insufficient to prove this beyond reasonable
doubt.
This recent decision of the Federal Supreme Court underscores how
prosecution authorities cannot infer intent for money laundering
only from compliance breaches.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
