-
- Art. 3 FC
- 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. 73 PRA
- Art. 73a 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. General
- II. Seizure (para. 1)
- III. Procedure and confiscation order (para. 2)
- IV. Discontinuance (para. 3)
- V. Objection procedure and legal remedies (para. 4)
- Bibliography
- Materials
I. General
1 Art. 377 CrimPC is the only provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure that governs the procedure for independent confiscation. Unlike ordinary criminal proceedings, the aim of independent confiscation proceedings is not to assess whether a specific person or several specific persons are to be convicted of committing or participating in a specific criminal offense. Rather, these (special) proceedings are used to determine whether there are any objects or assets that must be confiscated.
2 It is not out of the question that an independent confiscation order could be based on the results of a police investigation. This is because once criminal proceedings have been formally opened, there is generally no longer any room for the execution of an independent confiscation procedure under Art. 376 et seq. CrimPC. However, the order of an independent forfeiture also always requires that the substantive requirements for forfeiture under Art. 69 et seq. SCC are met. If the Office of the Public Prosecutor is of the opinion that this is the case, it must open independent forfeiture proceedings. In doing so, it must proceed by analogous application of Art. 309 CrimPC and order the opening of the independent forfeiture proceedings in a decree. This does not need to be substantiated or opened and is not contestable (see Art. 309 para. 3 sentences 2 and 3 CrimPC). The investigation that has been opened is limited to the factual and legal clarification of the matter with regard to the confiscation or the claim for compensation.
II. Seizure (para. 1)
3 Pursuant to Art. 377 para. 1 CrimPC, property or assets that are likely to be confiscated in independent proceedings shall be seized. The possibility of ordering a confiscation seizure in independent confiscation proceedings corresponds to that provided for in accessory confiscation proceedings (Art. 263 para. 1 let. d CrimPC).
4 Art. 377 para. 1 CrimPC makes it clear that the execution of an independent forfeiture procedure is not subject to the requirement that objects or assets have already been seized in advance. Rather, the forfeiture seizure can only be ordered within the framework of the independent forfeiture procedure based on Art. 377 para. 1 CrimPC.
5 Seizure is a precautionary measure based on probability or a provisional conservatory measure. To order it, it is sufficient if there is a possibility that the objects and assets concerned could be used, confiscated or restituted in the future.
6 Seizure is a coercive measure under criminal procedure. As such, it requires, among other things, reasonable suspicion (Art. 197 para. 1 let. b CrimPC). In this regard, it must be determined whether, based on the results of the investigation to date, there is sufficient concrete evidence of a criminal offense and of the involvement of the accused in that offense. Evidence of a criminal offense must be substantial and concrete in nature in order to establish reasonable suspicion.
7 As a coercive measure in criminal proceedings, the seizure must also be proportionate. It may only be ordered and maintained to the extent that the objectives it seeks cannot be achieved by less severe measures and the significance of the offense justifies the coercive measure (Art. 197 para. 1 let. c and d CrimPC). The extent of the seizure must be limited to what is necessary. During the proceedings, the criminal justice authorities must continually review whether and to what extent the seizure is still justified. A seizure can also become disproportionate if it is extended for no reason. In the case of a confiscation seizure, all assets must remain seized in principle as long as it is not clear which portion of the assets concerned is of criminal origin. Otherwise, there is a risk that the proceeds of crime will be fed back into the economic cycle and cannot be confiscated or restituted to the aggrieved person.
III. Procedure and confiscation order (para. 2)
A. Competent authority
8 The public prosecutor's office (Art. 377 para. 2 CrimPC) at the location of the property or assets to be confiscated (Art. 37 para. 1 CrimPC) is responsible for ordering the independent confiscation. If the account balances are to be confiscated, the place where the bank accounts in question are held is the determining factor for establishing the place of jurisdiction, i.e. the registered office of the financial institution concerned or the bank branch actually managing the account.
9 If the objects or assets to be seized are located in several cantons and are connected with the same offense or the same perpetrator, the authorities at the location where the (independent) forfeiture proceedings were first opened have jurisdiction (Art. 37 para. 2 CrimPC).
10 The necessity of Art. 37 CrimPC as a separate rule of jurisdiction for the independent confiscation procedure arises from the fact that the general rules on local jurisdiction (cf. Arts. 31-36 CrimPC) are not applicable to the independent confiscation procedure due to the lack of a link to an offence.
B. Procedure
11 If the (substantive) conditions for confiscation (in accordance with Art. 69 et seq. SCC) are met, the public prosecutor shall order the confiscation in a confiscation order (Art. 377 para. 2 first part of the sentence CrimPC).
12 In terms of content, the confiscation order corresponds to a summary penalty order (cf. Art. 353 CrimPC). This is already evident from the fact that the objection procedure under Art. 377 para. 4 sentence 1 CrimPC is governed by the provisions on the summary penalty order (Art. 352 et seq. CrimPC).
13 Before the confiscation order is issued, the accused and the person affected by the confiscation must be granted the right to a legal hearing (Art. 29 para. 2 FC; Art. 3 para. 2 let. c and Art. 107 CrimPC). The right to be heard encompasses all powers that must be granted to a person concerned so that they can effectively assert their point of view. It follows that the person concerned has the right to express their opinion on the matter before a decision is made that affects their legal position. In this sense, Art. 377 para. 2, second part of the CrimPC stipulates that the public prosecutor must give the person affected (by the confiscation) the opportunity to comment. The CrimPC does not specify in detail the form in which this statement should be made. It is conceivable that both an oral statement be taken in the context of a formal examination in accordance with Art. 142 et seq. of the CrimPC, as well as the obtaining of a written statement.
14 If the person affected by the confiscation is not presented with the draft of the confiscation order for comment, he must be informed about the object and extent of the confiscation, the offence justifying the confiscation (i.e. the underlying offence), the other conditions for confiscation and the reason why the confiscation cannot be accessory to ordinary criminal proceedings. In addition, the party affected by the confiscation must be granted all party rights in accordance with Art. 107 CrimPC, in particular the right to inspect files (Art. 107 para. 1 let. a CrimPC) and the right to request evidence (Art. 107 para. 1 let. e CrimPC).
15 If the party affected by the confiscation is a (non-accused) third party, that party is entitled to the procedural rights of a party as a third party adversely affected by procedural acts (Art. 105 para. 1 let. f CrimPC) to the extent that its rights are directly affected (Art. 105 para. 2 CrimPC). This is because third parties (not accused persons) who are adversely affected by a confiscation must be able to defend themselves against state interference with their rights, just like the accused person. In this respect, their position is comparable to that of an accused person whose assets are confiscated.
16 The injured party (as defined in Art. 115 para. 1 CrimPC) also has the aforementioned rights as a party, regardless of whether they have been constituted as a private claimant. If, for example, bank accounts have been seized in the course of the independent forfeiture proceedings, the granting of access to the records (Art. 107 para. 1 let. a CrimPC) in favor of the alleged injured party requires only that the latter credibly establishes a direct link between the alleged predicate offense and his or her status as an injured party. This is because Art. 73 SCC (“Use for the benefit of the injured party”) requires a direct link between the offense and the person injured by that offense, but not between the offense and the seized assets.
17 If the public prosecutor considers the investigation to be complete, it shall, by analogous application of Art. 318 para. 1 CrimPC, notify the parties with known domicile in writing of the imminent conclusion of the investigation and inform them whether it intends to issue a confiscation order (pursuant to Art. 377 para. 2 CrimPC) or to dismiss the proceedings (pursuant to Art. 377 para. 3 CrimPC). In order to ensure the right to be heard, the parties must be given the opportunity to comment before the confiscation order or the dismissal order is issued.
IV. Discontinuance (para. 3)
18 If the conditions for confiscation (in accordance with Art. 69 et seq. SCC) are not met, the public prosecutor shall order the discontinuance of the independent confiscation proceedings and shall return the seized objects or assets to the rightful owner (Art. 377 para. 3 CrimPC).
19 The form and general content of the dismissal order are based on Art. 80 f. and Art. 320 CrimPC.
20 Art. 377 para. 3 CrimPC does not regulate the special case that is regulated in Art. 70 para. 1 SCC, namely the restitution of objects or assets to the aggrieved person “to restore the lawful condition”. In such a case, a discontinuation order must also be issued, in which the surrender of the objects or assets to the injured party within the meaning of Art. 267 para. 2 CrimPC is ordered.
21 The party's obligation to bear the costs in the independent proceedings for interim measures is governed by Art. 426 CrimPC. The provisions of Art. 426 paras. 1 to 4 CrimPC concerning the accused's obligation to bear the costs apply mutatis mutandis to the party in the independent proceedings for interim measures if the decision is to their disadvantage, in accordance with Art. 426 para. 5 CrimPC. If the independent forfeiture proceedings are discontinued (in application of Art. 377 para. 3 CrimPC), the party may be ordered to pay all or part of the costs of the proceedings if it has unlawfully and culpably brought about the initiation of the proceedings or impeded their conduct (Art. 426 para. 2 CrimPC).
22 The right to compensation of the person affected by the forfeiture arises from Art. 429 CrimPC.
V. Objection procedure and legal remedies (para. 4)
A. Legal remedies against the dismissal and release order
23 The decision of the public prosecutor to dismiss the case in accordance with Art. 377 para. 3 CrimPC may be appealed under Art. 393 et seq. CrimPC.
B. Objection procedure
24 According to Art. 377 para. 4 sentence 1 CrimPC, the objection procedure is governed by the provisions on the summary penalty order (Art. 352 et seq. CrimPC). An objection may be raised against the confiscation order under Art. 377 para. 2 CrimPC within 10 days (Art. 354 para. 1 CrimPC).
25 The accused (Art. 354 para. 1 let. a CrimPC) and the person affected by the confiscation (Art. 354 para. 1 let. b CrimPC) are authorized to appeal. In the case of asset confiscation, the formal asset holder is primarily authorized to file an objection. In addition, anyone who is merely the beneficial owner of a bank account or other asset is also entitled to object to the confiscation order. The injured party is also entitled to object (Art. 105 para. 1 let. a in conjunction with Art. 105 para. 2 CrimPC), irrespective of whether they have been constituted as a private claimant (see Art. 118 para. 1 CrimPC).
26 If no valid objection is raised, the forfeiture order becomes a legally binding judgment (Art. 354 para. 3 CrimPC).
27 If an objection is raised and the public prosecutor decides to uphold the confiscation order (Art. 355 para. 3 let. a CrimPC) after taking the evidence necessary to assess the objection (Art. 355 para. 1 CrimPC), the public prosecutor shall immediately transfer the files to the court of first instance for the main proceedings (Art. 356 para. 1 sentence 1 CrimPC). The legally provided option of contesting the (independent) confiscation order before a judicial authority with full cognizance of the facts and legal issues satisfies the guarantee of an independent and impartial court under Art. 6 ECHR.
C. Appeals against the court's forfeiture order
28 Under the previous law, the court's forfeiture order obtained by means of an objection took the form of an order or a decree (Art. 377 para. 4 sentence 2 CrimPC). Therefore, this decision could be challenged by appeal (Art. 393 para. 1 let. b CrimPC).
29 In the context of the last revision of the CrimPC, the federal legislature decided that, for reasons of coherence, the court's independent forfeiture decision should be issued in the form of a judgment, as in the accessory proceedings, and should be subject to appeal. Under the new law, the court decision regarding the (independent) confiscation or the rejection of the confiscation request, which is enforced by objection, takes the form of a judgment (Art. 80 para. 1 sentence 1 St CrimPC; Art. 377 para. 4 sentence 2 CrimPC), which can be challenged by appeal (Art. 377 para. 4 sentence 3 CrimPC; Art. 398 para. 1 CrimPC).
30 The appeal may be dealt with in a written procedure if only measures within the meaning of Art. 66-73 SCC are challenged (Art. 406 para. 1 let. e CrimPC). This also includes (independent) confiscation.
31 The judgment of the court of appeal regarding the independent forfeiture or the rejection of the forfeiture application can be challenged by an appeal in criminal matters under Art. 78 et seq. BGG to the Federal Supreme Court.
About the author
Dr. iur. Tommaso Caprara, attorney, CAS Forensics, is a law clerk at the Second Criminal Division of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne.
Bibliography
Baumann Florian, Kommentierung zu Art. 377 StPO, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Heer Marianne/Wiprächtiger Hans (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung, 3. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Bernasconi Paolo, Kommentierung zu Art. 377 StPO, in: Bernasconi Paolo/Galliani Maria/Marcellini Luca/Meli Edy/Mini Mauro/Noseda John (Hrsg.), Commentario, Codice svizzero di procedura penale, Zürich/St. Gallen 2010.
Bouverat David, Kommentierung zu Art. 37 StPO, in: Jeanneret Yvan/Kuhn André/Perrier Depeursinge Camille (Hrsg.), Commentaire romand, Code de procédure pénale suisse, 2. Aufl., Basel 2019.
Conti Christelle/Tunik Daniel, Kommentierung zu Art. 377 StPO, in: Jeanneret Yvan/Kuhn André/Perrier Depeursinge Camille (Hrsg.), Commentaire romand, Code de procédure pénale suisse, 2. Aufl., Basel 2019.
Denys Christian, Kommentierung zu Art. 78 BGG, in: Aubry Girardin Florence/Donzallaz Yves/Denys Christian/Bovey Grégory/Frésard Jean-Maurice (Hrsg.), Commentaire de la LTF, 3. Aufl., Bern 2022.
Jeanneret Yvan/Kuhn André, Précis de procédure pénale, 2. Aufl., Bern 2018.
Jositsch Daniel/Schmid Niklaus, Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung, Praxiskommentar, 4. Aufl., Zürich 2023.
Moreillon Laurent/Parein-Reymond Aude, Code de procédure pénale (CPP), Petit commentaire, 2. Aufl., Basel 2016.
Moser Samuel/Schlapbach Annia, Kommentierung zu Art. 37 StPO, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Heer Marianne/Wiprächtiger Hans (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Schweizerische Strafprozessordnung, 3. Aufl., Basel 2023.
Oberholzer Niklaus, Grundzüge des Strafprozessrechts, 4. Aufl., Bern 2020.
Perrier Depeursinge Camille, Code de procédure pénale suisse (CPP) annoté, 2. Aufl., Basel 2020.
Piquerez Gérard/Macaluso Alain, Procédure pénale suisse, 3. Aufl., Zürich 2011.
Pitteloud Jo, Code de procédure pénale suisse (CPP), Commentaire à l'usage des praticiens, Zürich/St. Gallen 2012.
Schwarzenegger Christian, Kommentierung zu Art. 377 StPO, in: Donatsch Andreas/Lieber Viktor/Summers Sarah/Wohlers Wolfgang (Hrsg.), Kommentar zur Schweizerischen Strafprozessordnung (StPO), 3. Aufl., Zürich 2020.
Thommen Marc/Faga Roberto, Kommentierung zu Art. 78 BGG, in: Niggli Marcel Alexander/Uebersax Peter/Wiprächtiger Hans/Kneubühler Lorenz (Hrsg.), Basler Kommentar, Bundesgerichtsgesetz, 3. Aufl., Basel 2018.
Weingart Denise, Das Einspracheverfahren gegen den selbstständigen Einziehungsbefehl nach Art. 377 Abs. 4 StPO, Besonderheiten und offene Fragen, in: Bopp Dominik/Kistler Alexander/Lisik Natalie/Reber Kristof (Hrsg.), Der Prozess, Zürich 2023, S. 261 ff.
Materials
Botschaft vom 28.8.2019 zur Änderung der Strafprozessordnung (Umsetzung der Motion 14.3383, Kommission für Rechtsfragen des Ständerats, Anpassung der Strafprozessordnung), BBl 2019 6697 ff. (zit. Botschaft 2019).