After Detection, the Clarification

On 27 July 2026, the Criminal Chamber of the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (TPF), sitting in Bellinzona, delivered a first-instance judgment in case SK.2023.42. The judgment is not final. Lombard Odier has announced its intention to appeal to the TPF’s Court of Appeal. The operative part published that same day anonymises the parties and does not contain the Court’s written reasons. Lombard Odier is identified as a party in the TPF’s press release and in the bank’s own public statement.

In that statement, the bank maintains that it had robust internal controls and anti-money laundering procedures in place at the time, compliant with the organisational requirements of Swiss criminal law. It states that it disagrees with the judgment, will appeal and proactively reported its suspicions to Switzerland’s Money Laundering Reporting Office (MROS) in 2012. The bank also stresses that the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland never alleged that it knowingly or wilfully participated in money laundering. The TPF further states that the defendants continue to be presumed innocent.

At this stage, the TPF’s press release provides the publicly available summary of the Criminal Chamber’s reasoning. Its official English version nevertheless cautions that the wording used in the press release may differ from that of the judgment and that, for the purposes of case law, only the written version of the judgment is authoritative.

According to the press release, the Court found that Lombard Odier had not taken all reasonable and necessary organisational measures within the meaning of Article 102 of the Swiss Criminal Code to prevent the money laundering offence committed by its former account manager. The operative part specifies that the finding of guilt under Article 102 para. 2 relates to specific facts referenced to particular sections of the indictment. The bank was acquitted of the remaining allegations concerning corporate criminal liability.

The official English version of the TPF’s press release states that the bank “had evidence suggesting” that part of the assets held in the accounts concerned originated from acts of corruption. It continues:

“its anti-money laundering compliance bodies did not take sufficient measures to ensure that further enquiries regarding the origin and economic purpose of these funds were conducted and duly documented.”

The wording therefore addresses both the carrying out of those further enquiries and their documentation.

Three distinct elements emerge from the wording: the indications already available, the further enquiries they called for and the documentation of those enquiries.

The presence of indications does not bring the process to an end. The question then becomes what follow-up was actually given to those indications and whether the organisation can later demonstrate what was done. A clarification that took place but left no adequate trace may be difficult to establish years later.

The press release does not permit a complete assessment of the bank’s controls, although it reports the Court’s conclusion that not all reasonable and necessary organisational measures had been taken. If made public, the written reasons should permit a more precise assessment of the basis and scope of the Court’s conclusion; the outcome of the appeal may uphold, vary or overturn the judgment. This note makes no assessment of the practices of other institutions or of the Swiss banking sector as a whole.

Case SK.2023.42 concerns a banking institution. The TPF’s press release does not establish an equivalent rule for trustees, trust companies, professional administrators or family offices. The reasoning it summarises nevertheless raises a broader organisational question.

A fiduciary organisation may encounter situations calling for further clarification, including in relation to the origin of funds, the identity of a beneficial owner or the economic purpose of a structure.

Going beyond the wording of the press release, the question is this: how does the organisation demonstrate, years later if necessary, that the need for clarification was identified, that the clarification was carried out, appropriately reviewed and documented?