Lausanne (awp / ats) – The Federal Supreme Court dismisses the appeal of the chairman of the board of directors of Swisspartners Investment Network. The man was fined 10,000 Swiss francs for delivering customer data to the US tax authorities.
During the tax dispute between Switzerland and the United States, the company carried out a review of its relations with its American clients. She then realized that a number of them were probably not taxed properly in their country.
Swisspartners then spontaneously denounced itself to the Department of Justice (DoJ) in the hope of concluding an agreement freeing it from any prosecution (Non Prosecution Agreement). The Chairman of the Board visited the United States in person in November 2013 with a USB key containing the data of 109 clients of Swisspartners and its subsidiaries in the Cayman Islands and Liechtenstein. The key had been given to the DoJ through a lawyer.
Acquitted at first instance
The man and employees of Swisspartners had been denounced by the Federal Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) to the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office (MPC). The latter had imposed a suspended financial sentence and a fine of 10,000 Swiss francs against the president, but these sanctions had been lifted by the Federal Criminal Court (TPF).
In 2018, the Federal Supreme Court overturned this decision and referred the case to Bellinzona. In a 2018 judgment, the Court of Criminal Affairs upheld acts performed without right for a foreign state and imposed a fine of 10,000 Swiss francs. After failing before the TPF Court of Appeal, the president turned to the Federal Court, which also rejects the appeal in a judgment published on Monday.
Data available abroad
The appellant criticized the Court of Appeal for having left open the question of whether all the data supplied was not already available abroad, which would exclude a sanction under Swiss law. However, notes the Federal Court, this point was decided definitively by the Court of Criminal Affairs in 2018 already.
For the judges of Mon Repos, it is not disputed that the appellant acted, without authorization, in the interest of a foreign State. They wondered, however, whether his action could have been official. In this case, the data supplied was the sole responsibility of Swisspartners and its subsidiaries. They were not subject to a mutual administrative assistance procedure. In these conditions, nothing justified their handing over to a foreign administration. (judgment 6B_216 / 2020 of November 1, 2021)
ats/vj
–
