Swiss criminal complaints in international sports disputes: silver bullet or non-starter?

Threshold for Swiss criminal complaints: reasonable suspicion

Und the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC), any person may report a suspected offence to Swiss authorities. A criminal complaint does not, as a matter of law, require the complainant to prove the offence. Public prosecutors open an investigation if the available information gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed – and they must investigate unless it is evident that no crime took place. This means that the prosecution must carry on as long as there remains a reasonable doubt.

In practice, however, the formal threshold tells only part of the story. Complex, international economic crime cases demand significant prosecutorial resources. Authorities must understand the commercial context, identify and potentially apprehend the relevant individuals, analyse substantial volumes of data and, frequently, seek evidence abroad. A complaint that presents an incomplete chronology, an unclear theory of criminal liability or predominantly civil grievances creates an obvious risk of being rejected before the investigation begins.

Accordingly, the practical threshold is often higher than the statutory wording may suggest. A persuasive complaint should, therefore, not only evidence a reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct through verifiable facts and supporting evidence, but also provide the authorities with a clear and coherent roadmap for understanding the case and conducting the investigation.

Jurisdiction must be addressed from the outset

Given that Switzerland  has a long-standing role as a centre of international sports governance and is home to numerous sports federations, associations and governing bodies, is it the natural forum for criminal complaints against them?

Swiss criminal law generally applies if the offender acts in Switzerland or if the criminal result occurs in Switzerland. Corporate seat, location of decision-makers, place of execution, affected assets and location of the alleged loss may all be relevant as well.

Even assuming Swiss jurisdiction, the competent prosecuting authority must still be identified locally. Responsibility may lie with a cantonal prosecution office or, for certain offences and constellations, with the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland. Where conduct, persons and effects span several cantons or countries, questions of jurisdiction and venue may themselves become contested and delay the start of investigative measures.

Jurisdictional conflicts are not merely procedural. They can delay evidence preservation, witness examinations and requests for international assistance. They may also affect how the case is first perceived. A carefully prepared submission should therefore identify the principal Swiss connecting factors while avoiding an unnecessarily rigid approach that might restrict the authorities’ ability to allocate the matter efficiently.

To prompt a Swiss prosecutor to start an investigation in a cross-border context, claimants should map out worldwide disputes beforehand (ongoing or looming), and carefully co-ordinate their interaction. Otherwise, the Swiss prosecutor may feel that other jurisdictions are already sufficiently addressing and remedying the problematic conduct to warrant a stay of the investigation or, worse, its dismissal.

Building the case before filing

A criminal complaint that fails to meet the practical threshold described above may result in a decision to not open an investigation. While such a decision may be challenged, an appeal is often an uphill battle: it changes the procedural dynamic since – rather than engaging with a prosecutor who is advancing the investigation – the complainant must first challenge that prosecutor’s decision not to investigate. The resulting delay may postpone urgent investigative measures, increase the risk of evidence being lost and, as a practical matter, complicate the relationship with prosecuting authorities.

The initial complaint may require a significant investment of time and resources, but it should not be treated as a preliminary narrative that can be completed later. This is particularly important in international white-collar matters, where it is often the document that determines whether the authorities see a criminal case or a civil dispute.

Early preparation is equally important where immediate coercive measures may be required. Prosecutors will not necessarily appreciate the urgency of a case unless it is clearly explained in the complaint. Where there is a risk of evidence being altered, deleted or moved, or assets being dissipated, transferred or concealed, the complaint should identify, justify and outline preservation and asset-securing coercive measures.

Corporate criminal liability of sports bodies

Swiss criminal liability is not limited to individuals. Under Art. 102 SCC, legal entities may themselves incur corporate criminal liability where an offence committed in the course of their activities cannot be attributed to a specific individual because of an inadequate organisation. For certain severe offences, including bribery and money laundering, liability may also arise where the organisation failed to take all reasonable and necessary measures to prevent the offence.

This regime is not limited to commercial companies. In principle, it may also apply to associations and other legal entities, including international sports federations and governing bodies headquartered in Switzerland. The focus is on the underlying crime and on whether the organisation maintained adequate compliance controls to prevent corporate crimes (“failure to prevent” offence).

The potential consequences are significant. Depending on the circumstances, an organisation may face fines of up to CHF 5 million and asset forfeiture, alongside possible reputational, regulatory and civil consequences.

Prescription: a race against time

The Attorney General of Switzerland recently described complex financial crime enforcement as a “race against time”, pointing to the practical challenges created by sealing proceedings, vast amounts of digital data and cross-border evidence-gathering. In large international cases, investigations may take several years before a sufficiently complete factual record has been assembled to support charges.

Such time pressure is particularly relevant because, under Swiss law, limitation periods do not just relate to the investigative phase. As a general rule, the limitation period covers the time until a first-instance judgment has been issued. This means that the investigation by the prosecution authorities, the decision whether to indict and the first-instance court proceedings must all be completed before time expires.

While resource constraints do not alter the statutory threshold for opening proceedings, they do reinforce the need for focused and effective complaints. Authorities are more likely to engage effectively where the submission isolates the core conduct, presenting the evidence in an accessible form and proposing realistic investigative steps.

For complainants, limitation periods should not therefore be viewed as a distant procedural issue, but rather as a strategic consideration from the outset.

Conclusion: diligent preparation makes all the difference

So – are such criminal complaints silver bullets or non-starters?

Swiss criminal complaints in international sports disputes raise challenges that extend far beyond the underlying allegations. To be successful, the evidence must be identified, preserved and presented in a manner suitable for establishing a credible suspicion of criminal conduct. Jurisdiction, limitation periods, parallel proceedings, corporate criminal liability and cross-border evidence-gathering must be assessed with foreign co-counsel at an early stage – often before the complaint is filed.

As these disputes continue to intersect with criminal enforcement, the ability to bridge the gap between allegation, evidence and prosecution is all-important.

Filing a criminal complaint is no silver bullet – certainly not a quick fix – but focus, diligence and careful preservation and presentation of the evidence are essential to lay solid foundations to a successful outcome.

LALIVE’s White-Collar Crime and Investigations team in Geneva and Zurich regularly advises sports associations, public agencies, corporates, financial institutions, boards, shareholders and individuals on cross-border misconduct allegations, criminal complaints, evidence-gathering strategies, dawn raids and complex investigations involving multiple jurisdictions.