13. November 2025 | Legal Insight
Swiss Federal Supreme Court Clarifies
that AMLA Breaches do not, per se,
Establish Money Laundering Intent
13. November 2025 | Legal Insight
Swiss Federal Supreme Court Clarifies
that AMLA Breaches do not, per se,
Establish Money Laundering Intent
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.
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.
