Legal 500: Bribery & Corruption

What is the legal framework (legislation/regulations) governing bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?

The principal framework that governs bribery and corruption in Switzerland is the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC), specifically Articles 322ter–322decies SCC, which are grouped under Title 19 of the SCC. These provisions are divided into four sections which deal with bribery of the individual, including: bribery of Swiss public officials; bribery of foreign public officials; bribery of private individuals; and general provisions. Corporate criminal liability is regulated by Article 102 SCC, which falls under Title 7 of the SCC. The legislative framework provides for a distinction between bribery and granting an advantage. Bribery (Articles 322ter and 322quater SCC) refers to a specific act in exchange for the undue advantage. Whereas the granting of an advantage (Articles 322quinquies and 322sexies SCC) refers to unjustified favours given or accepted without any specific act in exchange (regardless of whether the advantage was accepted or it has influenced behaviour).

• Article 322ter SCC prohibits any person from offering, promising or giving to a Swiss public official (or to a third party) an undue advantage in order to cause the official to carry out or to fail to carry out an act in connection with his or her official activity. The act must be contrary to the official's duty or reliant on his or her discretion. Furthermore, the passive behaviour of the Swiss public official accepting a bribe is prohibited pursuant to Article 322quater SCC. There must be a concrete quid pro quo – a direct exchange of a favour for the act or omission. It is punishable by up to five years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty.
• Article 322quinquies SCC prohibits any person from offering, promising or giving to a Swiss public official an undue advantage (for himself or herself or for a third party) in order to cause the public official to carry out his or her official duties. Furthermore, the passive behaviour of the Swiss public official accepting an advantage is prohibited pursuant to Article 322sexies SCC. The key point is that it does not need to be tied to a concrete, identifiable act or quid pro quo. It includes goodwill payments. It is punishable by up to three years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty.

The wider legal framework includes confiscation rules, anti-money laundering legislation, FINMA-specific regulations for supervised entities, a specific military code for military officials, and specific rules around bribery in the medical sector. Additionally, Article 4a of the Unfair Competition Act (UCA) addresses corruption. Furthermore, preventative expectations are shaped by the Swiss Federal Council's Anti-Corruption Strategy 2026-2029, published on 28 January 2026, and developed as a continuation of the previous 2021-2024 Strategy.

Which authorities have jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction?

Generally, cantonal prosecutors have jurisdiction over criminal offences, save when jurisdiction is given to the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG). The Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (SCPC) states that at a federal level, the OAG investigates and prosecutes cases of bribery and corruption where: (i) the offence is subject to federal jurisdiction in so far as they are committed by a member of an authority or an employee of the Swiss Confederation or against the Swiss Confederation (Article 23(1)(j) SCPC); and (ii) cases in which the offence has to a substantial extent been committed abroad, or if the offence has been committed in two or more cantons with no single canton being the clear focus of the criminal activity (Article 24(1)(a) and (b) SCPC). At the cantonal level, the prosecutor at the place where the bribery or corruption was committed has jurisdiction to prosecute and adjudicate the offence (Article 31 SCPC). In practice, recently only the Canton of Geneva has prosecuted cases of foreign bribery (e.g., Benny Steinmetz).

Police authorities act under prosecutorial direction. Separately, if the entity is regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA), FINMA will oversee the regulatory aspects and may carry out an investigation concurrently with the prosecutor. MROS receives suspicious activity reports and transmits relevant intelligence to the prosecutor, who then decides whether to prosecute. The Swiss Federal Audit Office (SFAO) runs federal reporting channels and administers transparency controls for political finance. The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) handles international cooperation requests such as mutual legal assistance and extradition.

How is 'bribery' or 'corruption' (or any equivalent) defined?

Swiss criminal law does not formally distinguish between 'bribery' and 'corruption'. However, within the Swiss legal system, an act of bribing a public official or private individual is called 'active bribery', while receiving an undue advantage is called 'passive bribery'.

Bribery is defined as the act by which the bribed individual (a public official or a private individual) or a third party is offered, promised or given an undue advantage in exchange for the bribed individual to commit or omit a specific act which relates to his or her official activity, which is contrary to his or her duty or dependent on the exercise of his or her discretionary powers (Articles 322ter, 322quater 322octies and 322novies SCC).

The granting or acceptance of an undue advantage – which can be tangible (e.g., cash, payment in kind) or intangible (e.g., social or professional advantages), is defined as an act by which a public official is promised or given an undue advantage for himself or herself or third party in view of the future discharge of their official duties. Contrary to bribery, the undue advantage is not given for a specific act to be carried out or omitted.

Does the law distinguish between bribery of a public official and bribery of private persons? If so, how is 'public official' defined? Is a distinction made between a public official and a foreign public official? Are there different definitions for bribery of a public official and bribery of a private person?

Yes, Swiss law draws a clear distinction. As mentioned above, the provisions are divided into: bribery of Swiss public officials (Articles 322ter–322sexies SCC); bribery of foreign public officials (Article 322septies SCC); and bribery of private individuals (Articles 322octies and 322novies SCC).

Public officials are the officials and employees of a public administrative authority or of an authority for the administration of justice as well as persons who hold office temporarily or are employed temporarily by a public administrative authority or by an authority for the administration of justice or who carry out official functions temporarily (Article 110(3) SCC). Furthermore, the Title 19 of the SCC defines public officials to include members of the judiciary or other public authority, officially appointed experts, translators or interpreters, arbitrators, or members of the armed forces. Private individuals fulfilling official duties are subject to the same provisions as public officials (Article 322decies(2) SCC).

Foreign public officials are only different from Swiss public officials in that they act for a foreign state or international organisation (Article 322septies SCC).

Bribery of private individuals applies when an undue advantage is offered to an employee, partner, agent, or any other auxiliary of a third party in the private sector (Articles 322octies and 322novies SCC). Key differences include: (i) the maximum penalty for private bribery is three years (versus five years for public bribery); (ii) in minor cases, private bribery is prosecuted only upon complaint, not ex officio; and (iii) private bribery is a misdemeanour and thus not a predicate offense to money laundering, unlike public bribery.

Who may be held liable for bribery? Only individuals, or also corporate entities?

Both individuals and corporate entities can be held liable for bribery. Since 2003, the SCC provides for specific criminal liability of companies if the legal entity did not put in place all the reasonably necessary organisational measures. The SCC penalises corporate entities in one of two ways: a company can be liable when an offence is committed by an individual in the exercise of commercial activities and it is impossible to attribute the misconduct to a specific natural person due to the inadequate organisation of the undertaking (Article 102(1) SCC); and, in specific bribery cases (Articles 260ter, 260quinquies, 305bis, 322ter, 322quinquies, 322septies(1), and 322octies(1) SCC), the company is liable irrespective of the criminal liability of a specific natural person, provided the company has failed to take all reasonable organisational measures required to prevent such an offence (Article 102(2) SCC). The reasonable organisational measures will include the company having conducted risk assessments, adopted codes of conduct, monitored and updated the anti-bribery systems, provided employee training, carried out third party due diligence, and establishing effective whistleblowing channels. Foreign companies can also be prosecuted if the offence or failure of organisational measures took place in Switzerland. For individuals, liability may arise for active or passive bribery or for granting or accepting an undue advantage (as discussed above).

What are the civil consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?

Civil consequences can be significant but are fact-dependent. The main civil remedy is to seek damages in tort (Article 41 of the Swiss Code of Obligations (SCO)) or in contract (Article 97 et seq. SCO). Liability in tort requires proof that the defendant committed an unlawful act. Agreements influenced by corruption can be void, or only the corrupt part can be void, depending on the circumstances (Article 20 SCO). Under unfair competition law, bribery can lead to, for example, injunctions, profit surrender, or publication of judgments. Additionally, individuals harmed by bribery may file civil claims as private claimants in criminal proceedings. Furthermore, companies can be excluded from bidding in public procurement processes and can also be denied export guarantees.

What are the criminal consequences of bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?

For individuals found guilty of active or passive bribery of Swiss or foreign public officials, a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty of up to CHF 540,000 can be handed down (Articles 322ter, 322quater and 322septies SCC). Granting or accepting an undue advantage (Articles 322quinquies and 322sexies SCC) and bribery of private individuals (Articles 322octies and 322novies SCC) are punishable with up to three years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty. Additional sanctions can include a prohibition on carrying out professional services (Article 67 SCC). Companies can be fined up to CHF 5 million (Article 102 SCC). Forfeiture orders and replacement claims have no cap and can far exceed the monetary penalty. For active and passive bribery of Swiss or foreign public officials, the statute of limitations is 15 years. For private bribery, the statute of limitations is 10 years.

Does the law place any restrictions on hospitality, travel and/or entertainment expenses? Are there specific regulations restricting such expenses for foreign public officials? Are there specific monetary limits for such expenses?

An undue advantage can take any form, including gifts, travel expenses, meals or entertainment. However, there are two general exceptions to this: (i) advantages permitted under public employment law or contractually approved by a third party (e.g., an agreed-upon sales commission) (Article 322decies(1)(a) SCC); or (ii) negligible advantages that are common social practice (Article 322decies(1)(b) SCC). Swiss law lacks a clear benchmark of negligibility. However, for illustration purposes it is likely that an inexpensive bottle of wine as a Christmas present is acceptable, but a lunch invitation worth thousands may likely constitute an undue advantage. It is not unusual for Swiss corporates to set an internal threshold of approximately CHF 100-200. For some federal personnel, there is a specific monetary limit of CHF 200 for gifts in kind. The same restrictions apply to foreign officials under the general bribery provisions, without specific monetary thresholds.

Are political contributions regulated? If so, please provide details.

Switzerland has introduced rules regarding individual donations to parties and committees. Donations to parties represented in the Federal Parliament must be disclosed if they exceed CHF 15,000. Campaign funds towards the election to the Federal Parliament must be declared if the voting or election campaign has a budget of more than CHF 50,000. In addition, monetary donations from abroad and anonymous donations are prohibited. These rules were applied for the first time during the National Council elections in autumn 2023. The beneficiary of an undue advantage includes public officials, provided that the advantage serves to influence the public officials' duties.

Are facilitation payments prohibited or regulated? If not, what is the general approach to such payments?

Facilitation or grease payments – small payments offered to speed up official appointments or acts which are available to the public – are not specifically sanctioned under Swiss law. However, while fact specific, it may qualify as granting an undue advantage or accepting an undue advantage if the recipient is a Swiss public official, and then it is punishable and carries up to three years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty (Articles 322quinquies and 322sexies SCC). Furthermore, if the payment is connected to a specific act or omission, then that could instead amount to bribery, which carries up to five years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty (Articles 322ter and 322quater SCC).

Are there any defences available to the bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?

Defences are essentially based on the objective and subjective element of the crime. As mentioned above, an advantage would not be undue if: (i) the advantage is permitted under public employment law or contractually approved by a third party (Article 322decies(1)(a) SCC); or (ii) the advantage is negligible and is common social practice (Article 322decies(1)(b) SCC). Specifically, for companies, a defence would include where the bribe was paid outside the corporate framework of the company, or more pertinently that the company adopted all reasonable and necessary organisation measures to prevent the offence (Article 102(2) SCC). There are general exemptions available, including the decision not to prosecute if culpability and the impact of the offence are negligible (Article 52 SCC), or refraining from prosecution if the offender has made reparations and the interests of the public and harmed individuals are negligible (Article 53 SCC).

Are compliance programs a mitigating factor to reduce/eliminate liability for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?

Yes, compliance programmes are relevant both as a potential defence and as a mitigating factor. A company can avoid criminal liability entirely if it can prove that all reasonable organisational measures were in place and enforced to prevent the violation, even if a violation nonetheless occurred (Article 102(2) SCC). While the application of standards such as ISO 37001 does not create a safe harbour and does not guarantee protection from criminal liability, if implemented correctly they can be an effective precautionary tool to strengthen a company's protection against anti-corruption sanctions. Specifically for FINMA supervised entities, such as banks, the failure to implement an adequate AML/corruption programme may constitute a breach of the regulatory framework.

Has the government published any guidance advising how to comply with anti-bribery and corruption laws in your jurisdiction?

Yes, the government has published guidance. The Swiss State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) has published a brochure entitled "Preventing Corruption – Information for Swiss Businesses Operating Abroad on the Issue of Corruption in International Business Dealings" (third edition, 2017). The Swiss Federal Office of Justice, the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, and economiesuisse have also published soft law regulation. In addition, Transparency International has developed guides for companies. There are also various international standards that companies in Switzerland should consider as guidelines, including the OECD Good Practice Guidance on Internal Controls, Ethics and Compliance, the OECD Anti-Bribery Recommendation, and the ICC Rules on Combating Corruption 2023. However, in the recent Trafigura case, the court considered such soft laws as relevant in determining whether Trafigura's internal policies resulted in creating adequate organisational measures.

Are mechanisms such as Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) or Non-Prosecution Agreements (NPAs) available for bribery and corruption offences in your jurisdiction?

No, Switzerland does not currently have a legal basis for DPAs or NPAs. The OAG's proposal to introduce an equivalent of a DPA was not adopted by the Swiss Federal Council's draft bill in 2022 for a revision of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code (SCPC), and the Federal Council rejected the proposition back in 2019. However, the OAG continues to advocate for the introduction of DPAs, and on 25 February 2025, the Legal Affairs Committee submitted a postulate (no. 25.3028) mandating the Swiss Federal Council to consider the introduction of DPAs within the mechanism of Swiss criminal procedural law.

The absence of a DPA or NPA means Swiss companies cannot rely on the predictable 'self-report and cooperate equals no prosecution' pathway or prosecutorial discretion. However, under certain conditions, Swiss bribery cases may be settled through a Summary Penalty Order (Article 352 SCPC) or Accelerated Proceedings (Article 358 SCPC). In addition, as discussed above, a case may be exempt from punishment where there is no need for a penalty (Article 52 SCC) or where reparations have been made (Article 53 SCC).

The most commonly used mechanism is the Summary Penalty Order (Article 352 SCPC). The Summary Penalty Order is one of the most important practical corporate enforcement tools in Switzerland, which is also available to individuals. It allows the prosecutor to conclude proceedings without a full public court trial where the facts are sufficiently established, and the anticipated sanction falls within statutory limits. For corporations, the maximum criminal fine under Article 102 SCC is CHF 5 million. If the company does not object within the statutory deadline (generally 10 days), the order becomes final and legally binding without ordinary judicial review.

From a practical perspective, companies often favour this route because it provides speed, confidentiality and legal certainty while avoiding lengthy and highly public criminal proceedings. However, the process remains comparatively prosecutor-driven and less negotiation-based. While companies may engage with the OAG regarding factual findings and sanctions, the final determination largely remains with the prosecuting authority. The company's principal leverage ultimately lies in whether it accepts the order or challenges it before the courts.

Does the law in your jurisdiction provide protection to whistle-blowers? Do the authorities in your jurisdiction offer any incentives or rewards to whistle-blowers?

Currently, there is no specific Swiss law protecting whistleblowers from retaliation. Even internal disclosures may lead to sanctions. Under Swiss labour law, employees must observe a duty of loyalty and a duty of confidentiality towards their employer, including a duty of business secrecy (Article 321 SCO). These duties shape a strict three-step whistleblowing process: employees must first report misconduct internally; if the employer fails to act appropriately, they may escalate the matter to the authorities; and only if the authorities do not respond may they disclose the information to the public or third parties as a last resort. A breach of these escalation principles may result in a breach of the employees' contractual duties and, therefore, lead to the termination of the employment contract.

Employees who report wrongdoing therefore face considerable legal uncertainty. However, the employee may claim for compensation of up six months' salary where the termination is considered abusive. Moreover, disclosure of confidential information, particularly to the public, may expose whistleblowers to criminal liability for breaching provisions on business secrecy, official secrecy, banking secrecy, or professional confidentiality. In the public sector, officials may be required to report crimes and offences to supervisors or directly to criminal authorities. Therefore, courts decide on a case-by-case basis whether reporting of irregularities is legitimate, applying a 'balancing of interests' test.

Therefore, as a practical recommendation for companies, given the legal uncertainty for whistleblowers, companies should be advised to establish robust internal reporting channels as a risk-mitigation measure. The OECD has recommended the adoption of a legal framework to protect private sector whistleblowers. The Swiss Parliament is discussing whether to add whistleblower protection to Swiss labour and criminal laws. There are no specific incentives or rewards for whistleblowers to report bribery or corruption in Switzerland. Although not bound by the EU Whistleblowing Directive, Swiss companies with branches in the EU employing at least 50 people may still fall within its scope.

Financial institutions supervised by FINMA are expected to maintain internal whistleblowing mechanisms, and FINMA accepts reports of potential regulatory breaches. Swiss criminal procedure law also contains protections for witnesses and informants in criminal proceedings in specific situations, particularly where personal safety may be at risk.

Does the law in your jurisdiction enable individual wrongdoers to reach agreement with prosecutors to provide evidence/information to assist an investigation or prosecution, in return for e.g. immunity or a reduced sentence?

Swiss law does not have a specific leniency programme. However, in addition to the mechanisms explored in q. 14 above, a confession and sincere remorse may lead to a reduced penalty (Article 48(d) SCC). Furthermore, with regard to criminal organisations, the court may mitigate the penalty if the perpetrator cooperates (Article 260ter(4) SCC). Sanctions may be reduced through cooperating with investigators, voluntarily disclosing relevant facts, assisting in identifying other wrongdoers, or taking steps to remedy the harm may be considered by courts as mitigating circumstances when determining the sentence.

How common are government authority investigations into allegations of bribery? How effective are they in leading to prosecutions of individuals and corporates?

In 2025, Switzerland was ranked 6th on the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index with a score of 80. There are few reported bribery cases in Switzerland – below is a table of the official statistics from 2015-2024 from the Federal Statistical Office.

Offence	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020	2019	2018	2017	2016	2015
Title 19 SCC – Total bribery	19	25	16	13	11	8	14	17	28	55
Art. 322ter SCC – Bribery	10	6	7	6	0	6	7	11	15	43
Art. 322quater SCC – Acceptance of bribery	4	1	2	2	4	1	5	3	6	1
Art. 322quinquies SCC – Granting an advantage	2	2	0	0	1	2	1	1	2	5
Art. 322sexies SCC – Acceptance of an advantage	1	2	1	0	3	1	2	2	2	5
Art. 322septies SCC – Bribery of foreign public officials	0	1	3	1	4	1	1	3	4	1
Art. 322octies SCC – Bribery of private individuals: Bribery	1	12	1	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Art. 322novies SCC – Bribery of private individuals: Accepting bribes	1	1	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	—

In 2024, 19 cases passed the threshold of indictment and led to criminal convictions across the whole of Switzerland. In 2024, the MROS received an average of 59 suspicious reports each working day (15,141 total), a 27.5% increase from the prior year, though only 2.6% of predicate offences underlying money laundering were instances of corruption. However, the OECD has noted that Switzerland should do even more and that several court decisions have demonstrated a restrictive interpretation of both the foreign bribery offence and corporate liability.

What are the recent and emerging trends in investigations and enforcement in your jurisdiction?

Historically, many major Swiss anti-corruption cases ran alongside DOJ/SEC FCPA investigations. However, on 10 February 2025, the White House issued an executive order pausing FCPA enforcement to allow the review of existing and future enforcement policy to "prioritise American interests". On 9 June 2025, the DOJ issued revised FCPA enforcement guidelines. At the same time, on 20 March 2025, the UK SFO, French PNF, and the OAG reaffirmed their joint commitment to combating international bribery and corruption. To strengthen cooperation, the three authorities signed a Founding Statement establishing a dedicated joint taskforce (Taskforce).

Is there a process of judicial review for challenging government authority action and decisions? If so, please describe the key features of this process and remedy.

Yes. Government authority actions and decisions can generally be challenged through a system of judicial review, although the available route depends on the type of decision, the authority involved, and the stage of the proceedings.

In criminal proceedings, several remedies may be available. A party may challenge certain procedural acts by filing a complaint. This remedy is typically used against procedural decisions or measures taken by the police, the public prosecutor or the courts of first instance. The complaint is usually brought before the competent cantonal lower appeals authority. Where the matter falls under federal jurisdiction, it is brought before the Lower Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court. Where a court of first instance issues a judgment that ends the proceedings, either fully or partially, that judgment may usually be challenged by way of appeal. At cantonal level, the appeal is heard by the competent cantonal appeals chamber. In federal criminal matters, the appeal falls within the remit of the Higher Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court.

In limited circumstances, a party may request the revision of a final and legally binding judgment or summary penalty order. This is an extraordinary remedy and is generally available where important new facts or evidence emerge after the decision, provided those facts already existed before the decision was issued and could have affected the outcome. Furthermore, an appeal may be brought before the Federal Supreme Court as the court of last instance. This remedy is limited in scope. The Federal Supreme Court generally reviews questions of law, such as whether the lower authority correctly applied the law, rather than reassessing the facts. In most cases, such an appeal is only available against decisions that finally dispose of all or part of the proceedings.

Have there been any significant developments or reforms in this area in your jurisdiction over the past 12 months?

Pending changes:

The OAG continues to advocate strongly for the introduction of DPAs, and (while more than a year ago) on 25 February 2025, the Legal Affairs Committee submitted a postulate (no. 25.3028) mandating the Swiss Federal Council to consider the introduction of DPAs within the mechanism of Swiss criminal procedural law.

Enacted law:

On 26 September 2025, the Swiss Parliament passed the Federal Act on Transparency of Legal Entities and the Identification of Beneficial Owners (LETA), and the revised Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). The aim of these is to strengthen the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. The LETA introduces new requirements for legal entities and creates a centralised federal register of beneficial owners (transparency register). The partial revision of the AMLA extends the legal scope of the law. Certain consultancy services are now covered by the amendments, such as those related to real estate transactions or the establishment and structure of legal entities. LETA and the amendments to the AMLA are expected to come into force by the end of the year.

Published policy:

Furthermore, the Swiss Federal Council's Anti-Corruption Strategy 2026-2029 was published on 28 January 2026 and developed as a continuation of the previous 2021-2024 Strategy.

Recent cases:

On 31 January 2025, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court convicted Trafigura Beheer BV of active bribery of foreign public officials in connection with its Angolan operations. The Court imposed a CHF 3 million fine for failures to implement adequate organisational measures to prevent corrupt payments linked to Sonangol, Angola's state-owned oil company. The case is particularly significant because it represents the first full corporate corruption conviction following a complete criminal trial in Switzerland. Also, there was mutual legal assistance from Brazil. Furthermore, a USD 145 million compensatory claim was awarded. This case was rendered at first instance, and it is subject to an appeal.

The recent Glencore resolution is a good example of how Switzerland applies its own corporate liability framework. In August 2024, the OAG issued a Summary Penalty Order against Glencore under Article 102 SCC in connection with foreign bribery relating to mining rights in the DRC. The company was ordered to pay a CHF 2 million fine together with a compensation claim of approximately USD 150 million. Importantly, the OAG specifically stated that Glencore's cooperation during the investigation was taken into account when determining the penalty. At the same time, the case also illustrates that the main financial exposure in Switzerland frequently lies in disgorgement/confiscation rather than in the criminal fine itself.

Are there any planned or potential developments or reforms of bribery and anti-corruption laws in your jurisdiction?

Potential reforms include the introduction of a DPA mechanism, as discussed in q. 20 above. In addition, the Swiss Parliament is currently discussing whether to add protection for whistleblowers to Swiss labour and criminal laws.

To which international anti-corruption conventions is your country party?

Switzerland is not a member of the European Union. However, it is a member of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the United Nations (UN), and the Council of Europe (CoE). Furthermore, Switzerland has ratified the following international anti-corruption conventions:

• the UN Convention Against Corruption 2000 – ratified by Switzerland on 24 September 2009. This is the most comprehensive instrument for combating corruption at an international level.
• the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions 1997 – ratified by Switzerland on 31 May 2000. Switzerland was instrumental in drawing up this framework.
• the CoE Criminal Law Convention Against Corruption 1999 and Additional Protocol 2003 – ratified by Switzerland on 31 March 2006; however, with several reservations including Article 12 – trading in influence.
• the CoE Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime – ratified by Switzerland on 11 May 1993.

Switzerland participates in the above bodies' review mechanisms, in which it undergoes regular country reviews by other states, and simultaneously reviews other states' progress in parallel, including, for example, through being a member of the CoE's Group of States against Corruption (GRECO). Furthermore, Switzerland has entered into multiple bi-lateral agreements in matters of mutual legal assistance.

Do you have a concept of legal privilege in your jurisdiction which applies to lawyer-led investigations? If so, please provide details on the extent of that protection. Does it cover internal investigations carried out by in-house counsel?

Switzerland recognises attorney-client privilege (professional secrecy). In a decision (ruling 7B_158/2023) handed down on 6 August 2024 by the Federal Supreme Court (Court) (on appeal from the District Court of Zurich), the Court affirmed that attorney-client privilege is not limited to representation in court but extends to all typical legal activities, including legal advice and fact-finding (i.e., internal investigations conducted by an external attorney upon request of the company). Additionally, disclosure of information to a third party (e.g., FINMA) does not automatically make the information "generally known". The SCPC recognises the right to remain silent (nemo tenetur) and professional secrecy as exceptions to the obligation to cooperate.

Furthermore, legal privilege does not extend to documents that have been voluntarily and intentionally disclosed to a third party, meaning without any coercive measures. Once such documents leave the sphere of the lawyer–client relationship, the third party is obliged to produce them to law‑enforcement authorities upon request. Legal privilege also does not exempt third parties from their duty to testify. Finally, legal privilege does not apply to internal investigations conducted by in‑house counsel. Accordingly, law‑enforcement authorities may require the disclosure of documents generated in such investigations. An exception exists only in civil proceedings: legal entities entered in the Commercial Register may refuse to produce privileged documents where its legal director is a qualified lawyer (i.e. has passed the bar exam). This protection also extends to employees of the entity's legal department.

How much importance does your government place on tackling bribery and corruption? How do you think your jurisdiction's approach to anti-bribery and corruption compares on an international scale?

Switzerland consistently ranks among the top countries in Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index. In 2025, Switzerland was ranked 6th with a score of 80. Based on OECD standards, Switzerland meets 53% of criteria for regulation (compared to the OECD average of 45%) but only 17% for implementation (compared to the OECD average of 36%). Significant gaps remain in lobbying-related corruption risks (0% of criteria met), conflict of interest (33% regulation, 0% implementation), and political finance. However, criticism has been raised against Switzerland for not implementing a whistle-blower framework.

Generally, how serious are corporate organisations in your country about preventing bribery and corruption?

There is no general regulatory requirement to introduce an anti-corruption compliance programme (except for prudentially supervised entities such as banks). Companies are encouraged rather than legally obliged to implement compliance measures. A February 2024 Transparency International study revealed that one-third of Swiss businesses admitted to engaging in bribery abroad, with more than 50% facing demands for "informal" payments in foreign business – more prevalent than a decade ago. 70% of Swiss companies operating abroad expect requests for bribes from the private sector, compared to 60% in the public sector. Most large Swiss corporations take their obligations seriously, as a lack of effective organisational measures can lead to their criminal liability. As a result, corporate compliance systems, internal controls, governance structures and third-party due diligence have become increasingly important in Swiss enforcement practice.

What are the biggest challenges corporate entities face when investigating bribery and corruption issues?

In practice, it is often challenging to distinguish prohibited bribes from legal payments qualified as commissions of intermediaries, goodwill payments, sponsorship, or market-conditioning expenditures. Similarly, whether a beneficiary qualifies as a corrupted person or a legitimate local agent or lobbyist can be subtle. Furthermore, the application of compliance standards does not always create a safe harbour and does not guarantee protection from criminal liability.

One of the biggest challenges for multinational companies arise from the interaction between Swiss law and foreign enforcement expectations. Foreign authorities (particularly US authorities) often expect fast and broad disclosure. However, Swiss law imposes important restrictions, including: (i) Article 271 SCC – the Swiss blocking statute which prohibits unlawful activities in Switzerland on behalf of a foreign state without authorisation; (ii) Swiss data protection laws – which requires that personal data be processed lawfully, in good faith, proportionately and transparently. Failure to do so may result in a breach of the data subject's personal rights; (iii) banking secrecy laws; and (iv) professional secrecy and privilege rules.

A company may wish to cooperate with a foreign authority, but it must first assess whether transferring documents, personal data or interview materials could breach Swiss law. In certain situations, companies may need: (i) Swiss governmental authorisation; (ii) reliance on mutual legal assistance channels; or (iii) additional data protection safeguards before information can be transferred abroad. As a result, the key challenge today is not simply whether to cooperate, but rather how to cooperate across multiple jurisdictions in a coordinated and legally compliant manner.

What are the biggest challenges enforcement agencies/regulators face when investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption in your jurisdiction? How have they sought to tackle these challenges? What do you consider will be their areas of focus/priority in the next 12-18 months?

Because corruption cases often have multi-jurisdictional elements, Swiss law‑enforcement authorities must cooperate with foreign authorities to conduct their investigations. This dependence on international assistance can significantly prolong proceedings and requires extensive coordination. In some cases, access to key evidence may be denied or delayed if mutual legal assistance is refused or not effectively implemented. As a result, offences may become time‑barred before investigations yield meaningful outcomes. Improving international cooperation in bribery and corruption matters will therefore remain a key priority for Swiss law‑enforcement authorities over the next 18 months.

The creation of the Taskforce may assist with this challenge. However, at a recent Global Investigations Summit, the three regulators explained that the Taskforce already has a "healthy pipeline of cases". However, they also explained that, at the moment, there are no plans for "shared legal jurisdiction" and that they continue to rely heavily on mutual legal assistance. Another key issue for the prosecutor is the sealing of evidence under Swiss criminal procedure law. While sealed, prosecutors may not inspect or use the material, and the process of unsealing can take a significant amount of time and cause delays to the prosecution.

How have enforcement agencies/regulators in your jurisdiction sought to address the challenges presented by the significant increase of electronic data in either investigations or prosecutions into bribery and corruption offences?

Discussions with enforcement agencies indicate that evidence review and analysis are currently carried out largely through manual processes, which is time‑consuming and can significantly prolong the time it takes to carry out an investigation or prosecution. The agencies noted, however, that they are exploring the use of AI‑based tools to support and accelerate the review of evidence in the future.

What do you consider will be the most significant bribery and corruption-related challenges posed to businesses in your jurisdiction over the next 18 months?

Because a significant share of Swiss companies operates abroad and faces requests for bribes from private-sector counterparties, managing foreign operations will remain a significant challenge, particularly as companies navigate overlapping national and international regulatory frameworks.

Furthermore, the new transparency and due diligence obligations under the AMLA revision and LETA will impose additional requirements, particularly around beneficial ownership and legal advisory activities.

How would you improve the legal framework and process for preventing, investigating and prosecuting cases of bribery and corruption?

Implementing a DPA mechanism would encourage companies to voluntarily disclose misconduct rather than risk multi-jurisdictional enforcement. Furthermore, Switzerland should introduce whistleblower protection, as private sector whistleblowers are currently exposed to potential civil, employment and criminal consequences as a result of reporting.