Skip to main content

A-01-01 FINMASA

Financial Market Supervision Act

Projets en cours

Projets en cours

Comments? Corrections?

Articles en relation

Retrocessions and prohibition from practicing

Comparative perspectives from criminal law and surveillance law

Is an asset manager who receives retrocessions for ten years without informing his clients guilty of unfair management and can he be prohibited from practicing within the meaning of Art. 67 CP? The Federal Supreme Court answered both questions in the affirmative in its judgment 6B_431/2024 of November 10, 2025. In this case, an asset manager was accused of receiving retrocessions between 2006 and 2016 without informing his clients. The asset manager received 25% of the annual deposit fees, 60%[...]

FINMA Communication

Clarifications regarding the custody of cryptoassets

The growing interest in cryptoassets has been accompanied in Switzerland by the rapid development of services for the custody of these assets. Against this backdrop, on 12 January 2026 FINMA published its Supervisory Notice 01/2026 on the custody of cryptoassets. It sets out the legal basis governing their custody and withdrawal in the event of the custodian's bankruptcy, while highlighting the risks associated with certain configurations, particularly when foreign sub-custodians are used. This communication addresses four topics: (i) the custody[...]

Carrying out an activity without authorisation

The Federal Court upholds naming and shaming

In a ruling dated 16 September 2025, the Federal Court confirmed that the publication for five years on the FINMA website of a decision prohibiting a person from carrying out an activity subject to authorisation under financial market law without the necessary authorisation is justified (2C_596/2024 of 16 September 2025) . This ruling is based on the same facts as ruling 2C_597/2024 of 16 September 2025 (commented on in: Dupuis, cdbf.ch/1440/). In summary, a company and its three main shareholders,[...]

Carrying out an activity without authorisation

The consequence is compulsory liquidation

In a recent judgment intended for publication (judgment 2C_597/2024 of 16 September 2025), the Federal Court confirmed the liquidation of a company that had carried out the activity of an issuing house (see Art. 3 para. 2 aOBVM) (now a securities house, see Art. 44 para. 1 let. c LEFin) without authorisation. Company A, founded in 2015 by C, is active in the sale of subscriptions for recyclable goods. Shortly after the company was founded, C sold 80% of the[...]

Plus d'articles en relation