Skip to main content

B-04-29 FINMA Guidance 05/2021

Preventing and Combating Greenwashing

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[...]

Confiscation and money laundering

Method applicable in cases where illegal and legal bank assets are mixed

In a judgment intended for publication, the Federal Court ruled on the method applicable for separating bank assets derived from a criminal offence from legal bank assets deposited in the same account (7B_65/2023 of 5 December 2025). In 2010, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (‘OAG’) opened criminal proceedings against persons unknown on suspicion of money laundering of assets derived from crimes committed in Russia (Art. 305bis(1) and (2) of the Swiss Criminal Code). In essence, the Russian[...]

DEBA Attachment

The client and her representative versus the bank and its choice of jurisdiction

In its ruling 5A_50/2025 of 12 December 2025, the Federal Court ruled that the Obergericht of the canton of Zug had acted arbitrarily in lifting an attachment based on a judgment of the High Court of Singapore (Art. 271 para. 1 no. 6 LP). The dispute concerns the indirect jurisdiction of the Singapore court, which is based on a choice of court clause (Art. 26(b) LDIP). Is the alleged debtor bound by this clause under the rules on representation? The[...]

Plus d'articles en relation