-
- Art. 5a FC
- Art. 6 FC
- Art. 10 FC
- Art. 16 FC
- Art. 17 FC
- Art. 20 FC
- Art. 22 FC
- Art. 29a FC
- Art. 30 FC
- Art. 32 FC
- Art. 42 FC
- Art. 43 FC
- Art. 43a FC
- Art. 55 FC
- Art. 56 FC
- Art. 60 FC
- Art. 68 FC
- Art. 75b FC
- Art. 77 FC
- Art. 96 para. 2 lit. a FC
- Art. 110 FC
- Art. 117a FC
- Art. 118 FC
- Art. 123b FC
- Art. 136 FC
- Art. 166 FC
-
- Art. 11 CO
- Art. 12 CO
- Art. 50 CO
- Art. 51 CO
- Art. 84 CO
- Art. 143 CO
- Art. 144 CO
- Art. 145 CO
- Art. 146 CO
- Art. 147 CO
- Art. 148 CO
- Art. 149 CO
- Art. 150 CO
- Art. 701 CO
- Art. 715 CO
- Art. 715a CO
- Art. 734f CO
- Art. 785 CO
- Art. 786 CO
- Art. 787 CO
- Art. 788 CO
- Transitional provisions to the revision of the Stock Corporation Act of June 19, 2020
- Art. 808c CO
-
- Art. 2 PRA
- Art. 3 PRA
- Art. 4 PRA
- Art. 6 PRA
- Art. 10 PRA
- Art. 10a PRA
- Art. 11 PRA
- Art. 12 PRA
- Art. 13 PRA
- Art. 14 PRA
- Art. 15 PRA
- Art. 16 PRA
- Art. 17 PRA
- Art. 19 PRA
- Art. 20 PRA
- Art. 21 PRA
- Art. 22 PRA
- Art. 23 PRA
- Art. 24 PRA
- Art. 25 PRA
- Art. 26 PRA
- Art. 27 PRA
- Art. 29 PRA
- Art. 30 PRA
- Art. 31 PRA
- Art. 32 PRA
- Art. 32a PRA
- Art. 33 PRA
- Art. 34 PRA
- Art. 35 PRA
- Art. 36 PRA
- Art. 37 PRA
- Art. 38 PRA
- Art. 39 PRA
- Art. 40 PRA
- Art. 41 PRA
- Art. 42 PRA
- Art. 43 PRA
- Art. 44 PRA
- Art. 45 PRA
- Art. 46 PRA
- Art. 47 PRA
- Art. 48 PRA
- Art. 49 PRA
- Art. 50 PRA
- Art. 51 PRA
- Art. 52 PRA
- Art. 53 PRA
- Art. 54 PRA
- Art. 55 PRA
- Art. 56 PRA
- Art. 57 PRA
- Art. 58 PRA
- Art. 59a PRA
- Art. 59b PRA
- Art. 59c PRA
- Art. 62 PRA
- Art. 63 PRA
- Art. 67 PRA
- Art. 67a PRA
- Art. 67b PRA
- Art. 75 PRA
- Art. 75a PRA
- Art. 76 PRA
- Art. 76a PRA
- Art. 90 PRA
-
- Vorb. zu Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 1 FADP
- Art. 2 FADP
- Art. 3 FADP
- Art. 5 lit. f und g FADP
- Art. 6 Abs. 6 and 7 FADP
- Art. 7 FADP
- Art. 10 FADP
- Art. 11 FADP
- Art. 12 FADP
- Art. 14 FADP
- Art. 15 FADP
- Art. 19 FADP
- Art. 20 FADP
- Art. 22 FADP
- Art. 23 FADP
- Art. 25 FADP
- Art. 26 FADP
- Art. 27 FADP
- Art. 31 para. 2 lit. e FADP
- Art. 33 FADP
- Art. 34 FADP
- Art. 35 FADP
- Art. 38 FADP
- Art. 39 FADP
- Art. 40 FADP
- Art. 41 FADP
- Art. 42 FADP
- Art. 43 FADP
- Art. 44 FADP
- Art. 44a FADP
- Art. 45 FADP
- Art. 46 FADP
- Art. 47 FADP
- Art. 47a FADP
- Art. 48 FADP
- Art. 49 FADP
- Art. 50 FADP
- Art. 51 FADP
- Art. 54 FADP
- Art. 57 FADP
- Art. 58 FADP
- Art. 60 FADP
- Art. 61 FADP
- Art. 62 FADP
- Art. 63 FADP
- Art. 64 FADP
- Art. 65 FADP
- Art. 66 FADP
- Art. 67 FADP
- Art. 69 FADP
- Art. 72 FADP
- Art. 72a FADP
-
- Art. 2 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 3 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 4 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 5 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 6 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 7 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 8 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 9 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 11 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 12 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 25 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 29 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 32 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 33 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
- Art. 34 CCC (Convention on Cybercrime)
FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
CODE OF OBLIGATIONS
FEDERAL LAW ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW
LUGANO CONVENTION
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON POLITICAL RIGHTS
CIVIL CODE
FEDERAL ACT ON CARTELS AND OTHER RESTRAINTS OF COMPETITION
FEDERAL ACT ON INTERNATIONAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS
DEBT ENFORCEMENT AND BANKRUPTCY ACT
FEDERAL ACT ON DATA PROTECTION
SWISS CRIMINAL CODE
CYBERCRIME CONVENTION
- I. Delimitation of non-criminal conduct
- II. Equality of private individuals with public officials
- Bibliography
- Materials
I. Delimitation of non-criminal conduct
1 Art. 322decies SCC was created during the last revision of the criminal law on corruption in 2016. The aim of this revision was to close gaps in criminal law on corruption that still existed in Switzerland as the home country of various major international sports associations and as a globalized business location. With the introduction of the offense of granting or accepting an advantage, there was a growing need to exempt certain acts from criminal liability in all cases. This need was met by the common provisions pursuant to Art. 322decies SCC.
A. Benefits permitted under employment law
2 With Art. 322decies para. 1 lit. a SCC, the legislator has created an exception that exempts benefits permitted under employment law from criminal liability. An advantage is covered by lit. a if its acceptance is permitted on the basis of a general-abstract norm of public service law. In the course of the revision of the criminal law on corruption, the dispatch pointed out that such general-abstract norms must already have entered into force prior to the offense. This includes, for example, administrative standards relating to the reporting, approval or delivery of gifts or other benefits, such as those provided for in Art. 21 para. 3 of the Federal Personnel Act and Art. 93 and 93a of the Federal Personnel Ordinance.
3 If there is a suspicion of bribery of foreign public officials, the circumstances in the country concerned are decisive in assessing the general abstract standard. For example, payments to foreign public officials that are permitted or even required under the relevant local written law or established case or customary law do not constitute an undue advantage.
B. Contractually authorized advantages
4 With the regulation of bribery in the private sector in the SCC, Art. 322decies para. 1 lit. a SCC created the counterpart to the advantages permitted under employment law. Accordingly, benefits that have been contractually approved by a third party do not constitute undue advantages. A third party is deemed to be the trust giver who has a contractual relationship with the trust taker.
5 The question of whether consent must be given before or after the offense is disputed among scholars. If one follows the message, it must already be clear before the act in question which advantages are authorized. In contrast, there are doctrinal opinions that follow the wording of Art. 322decies para. 1 lit. a, 2nd part of the sentence and see the possibility of subsequent authorization of this benefit. According to the opinion expressed here, this issue must be viewed in a differentiated manner. A criminal act is already completed when the offer reaches the public official or private individual. Although approval can be granted at a later point in time, the (criminal) act is therefore already complete. Subsequent approval of an advantage can therefore only have the effect of excluding prosecution in the sense of a declaration of disinterest. However, since the fulfillment of the elements of the offense had already been completed, the approval cannot constitute consent that excludes prosecution.
6 In the case of private bribery pursuant to Art. 322octies SCC, the question also arises as to whether the provision of an advantage to a third party, and therefore not to the person in a position of trust, can be authorized by the principal. It should be noted that the principal generally does not have a contractual relationship with this third party and accordingly there are no duties of loyalty between the third party and the principal. In the case of private bribery, however, the focus is always on a breach of the duty of loyalty between the person receiving the bribe and the person placing the trust. Whether the bribing person provides a benefit to a third party or to the relying party is irrelevant from the perspective of the relying party, as the relying party also breaches its duty of loyalty if the bribing person provides a benefit to a third party on the instructions of the relying party. Therefore, it seems objectionable if approval can only be granted if the relying party retains the benefit himself, but not if the benefit is directed to a third party.
7 To simplify matters, here is an example: An employee who works as a purchasing manager for his employer has a friendly relationship with a potential supplier of the employer. The employee may be liable to prosecution for private bribery if he allows himself to be bribed by the supplier granting a benefit to the employee's preferred sports club so that the employee allocates future supplements to this supplier. Since the employer can approve the awarding of the contract to the supplier as a result of the direct granting of a gift from the supplier to the employee, it seems only logical that the employer can also approve the awarding of the contract to the supplier as a result of the benefit to the sports club.
C. Minor, socially customary benefits
8 According to Art. 322decies para. 1 lit. b SCC, minor, socially customary advantages are exempt from criminal liability, whereby the requirements must be met cumulatively. Whether an advantage falls within the range of insignificance and social custom must be assessed on the basis of an overall assessment.
9 Benefits are considered to be socially customary if they are based on social conventions and are not considered improper by society as a whole. Criminal liability is not assumed if the benefits in question cannot cause any bias on the part of the recipient and therefore cannot be influenced by the sender. The embassy refers here to cases in the absolutely trivial area, such as a coffee during a meeting or the gift of a pocket calendar. A distinction must be made between such absolutely trivial cases and cases in which a minor benefit is given, but this is done in direct connection with or with the aim of carrying out an act of bribery. If the benefit is provided with a view to an act of bribery, there is no social custom. Minority and social custom are therefore cumulative requirements in order to exclude criminal liability.
10 Due to the lack of a statutory maximum limit, it is not possible to precisely define when a benefit is no longer de minimis. The limit of insignificance must be set at the threshold above which influencing becomes possible. This threshold is controversial among scholars and has not yet been assessed by the Federal Supreme Court. Hilti, for example, analyzes the different doctrinal opinions and focuses on possible influence. In his opinion, the threshold of insignificance must be set low in order to prevent influence. Other doctrinal voices apply the case law on Art. 172ter SCC analogously to the threshold of insignificance, according to which insignificance would be set at a maximum value of CHF 300.00. According to the opinion expressed here, this value is to be approved in accordance with the case law on Art. 172ter SCC in the sense of an absolute maximum limit. However, whether a maximum amount of CHF 300.00 is still a suitable guideline value for the upper value limit pursuant to Art. 172ter SCC is disputed among scholars. Furthermore, it should be noted that even lower amounts can no longer be considered minor. This is the case if the criterion of social custom is weighted more heavily. Accordingly, the answer to the question of what constitutes a minor and socially customary disadvantage always results from an overall consideration of the two cumulative requirements to be fulfilled. The frequency of the advantage granted must also be taken into account, whereby the multiple granting of an advantage that appears to be socially customary and insignificant when considered individually can make it suitable as a means of committing an offense.
II. Equality of private individuals with public officials
11 According to para. 2, private individuals who perform public duties are treated in the same way as public officials. This equality already results from the interpretation of the term “public official” according to Art. 110 para. 3 SCC, according to which the Swiss Criminal Code assumes both an institutional and a functional concept of public official (see OK-Baumgartner/Hurni, Art. 322ter SCC N. 14 et seq.).
Bibliography
Betz Kathrin, Kommentierung zu Art. 322octies StGB, in: Trechsel Stefan/Pieth Mark (Hrsg.), Praxiskommentar, StGB, 4. Aufl., Zürich et al. 2021.
Blattner Lucius Richard, Der leichte Fall der Privatbestechung, forumpoenale 1 (2017), S. 39-45.
Donatsch Andreas/Thommen Marc/Wohlers Wolfgang, Strafrecht IV, Delikte gegen die Allgemeinheit, 5. Aufl., Zürich 2017.
Hilti Martin, Kommentierung zu Art. 322septies StGB, in: Graf Damian K. (Hrsg.), Annotierter Kommentar StGB, Bern 2020.
Hilti Martin, Kommentierung zu Art. 322decies StGB, in: Graf Damian K. (Hrsg.), Annotierter Kommentar StGB, Bern 2020.
Isenring Bernhard, Kommentierung zu Art. 322decies StGB, in: Donatsch Andreas (Hrsg.), Orell Füssli Kommentar, StGB, 21. Aufl., Zürich 2022.
Jositsch Daniel, Das Schweizerische Korruptionsstrafrecht, Zürich 2004.
Jositsch Daniel/Drzalic Jana Johanna, Die Revision des Korruptionsstrafrechts, AJP 2016, S. 349-358.
Mingard Roxanne, L’avantage indu dans les infractions relatives à la corruption, ZStrR 2 (2010), Zürich 2010.
Pieth Mark, Kommentierung zu Art. 322ter StGB, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Wiprächtiger Hans (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, StGB II, 4. Aufl., Basel 2019.
Pieth Mark, Kommentierung zu Art. 322decies StGB, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Wiprächtiger Hans (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, StGB II, 4. Aufl., Basel 2019.
Materials
Botschaft über die Änderung des Schweizerischen Strafgesetzbuches und des Militärstrafgesetzes (Revision des Korruptionsstrafrechts) sowie über den Beitritt der Schweiz zum Übereinkommen über die Bekämpfung der Bestechung ausländischer Amtsträger im internationalen Geschäftsverkehr vom 19.4.1999, BBl 1999 5497 ff., abrufbar unter: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/1999/1_5497_5045_4721/de, besucht am 20.11.2023, (zit. Botschaft Revision).
Botschaft über die Änderung des Strafgesetzbuchs (Korruptionsstrafrecht) vom 30.4.2014, BBl 2014 S. 3591 ff. abrufbar unter: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/fga/2014/787/de, besucht am 20.11.2023, (zit. Botschaft Änderung).