{"id":136554,"date":"2026-04-29T16:00:17","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T16:00:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/?post_type=comparative_guide&#038;p=136554"},"modified":"2026-05-07T14:00:51","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T14:00:51","slug":"switzerland-asset-tracing-and-recovery","status":"publish","type":"comparative_guide","link":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/chapter\/switzerland-asset-tracing-and-recovery\/","title":{"rendered":"Switzerland: Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery"},"content":{"rendered":"","protected":false},"template":"","class_list":["post-136554","comparative_guide","type-comparative_guide","status-publish","hentry","guides-asset-tracing-and-recovery","jurisdictions-switzerland"],"acf":[],"appp":{"post_list":{"below_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lindholm &amp; Rosenkranz Attorneys at Law LLC<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/LinkedIn-Profile-Photo-400x400-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>"},"post_detail":{"above_title":"<div class=\"guide-author-details\"><span class=\"guide-author\">Lindholm &amp; Rosenkranz Attorneys at Law LLC<\/span><span class=\"guide-author-logo\"><img src=\"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/1\/2026\/03\/LinkedIn-Profile-Photo-400x400-1.jpg\"\/><\/span><\/div>","below_title":"<span class=\"guide-intro\">This country specific Q&amp;A provides an overview of Asset Tracing &amp; Recovery laws and regulations applicable in Switzerland<\/span><div class=\"guide-content\"><div class=\"filter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t<input type=\"text\" placeholder=\"Search questions and answers...\" class=\"filter-container__search-field\">\r\n\t\t\t<\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<ol class=\"custom-counter\">\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal framework governing civil asset recovery in your jurisdiction, including key statutes, regulations, and international conventions that have been incorporated into domestic law?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The legal framework comprises both international conventions and domestic statutes.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Key international conventions<\/strong> include the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 2007 (Lugano Convention), the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention), various Hague Conventions such as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005, and other bilateral and multilateral treaties.<\/p>\n<p>Domestic statutes of principal relevance include the Swiss Private International Law Act (PILA), the Swiss Debt Enforcement and Bankruptcy Act (DEBA), the Swiss Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and, where applicable, the Federal Act on Banks and Savings Institutions.<\/p>\n<p>The applicability of these legal frameworks is largely determined by the specific circumstances surrounding each case. Specifically,<\/p>\n<p>i) where a <strong>Swiss judgment<\/strong> exists, recovery is pursued through enforcement proceedings under<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the DEBA \u2013 governing the enforcement of monetary claims by initiating debt enforcement proceedings or immediate bankruptcy proceedings, the consequences of non-payment thereafter, i.e., distraint if it concerns a natural person or bankruptcy proceedings if it concerns an entity, and preliminary measures such as attachments (Arrest);<\/li>\n<li>the CPC \u2013 governing enforcement of non-monetary claims (e.g. specific performance, prohibitions, etc., and preliminary measures).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>ii) where a <strong>foreign judgment or arbitral award<\/strong> exists, recovery is achieved through its recognition and enforcement in Switzerland under<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>relevant international conventions such as the Lugano Convention (applicable to civil judgments from Denmark, EU states, Island, Norway, and Switzerland), the New York Convention 1958 (governing recognition of foreign arbitral awards) and the applicable Hague Conventions;<\/li>\n<li>Art. 25 et seqq. PILA for recognition of foreign judgments in cases where no applicable international convention is in place.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In addition, enforcement is carried out under the DEBA if it concerns monetary claims or the CPC if it concerns non-monetary claims (see i above).<\/p>\n<p>iii) where the claim arises in the context of a <strong>foreign insolvency<\/strong>, recovery is pursued by recognition of the foreign insolvency decree (followed by recovery of assets\u00a0located in Switzerland), typically through<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Art. 166 et seqq. PILA;<\/li>\n<li>Art. 37g Federal Act on Banks and Savings Institutions in case it concerns an insolvent foreign bank;<\/li>\n<li>specific bilateral and multilateral agreements concerning the automatic recognition of foreign insolvency decrees such as the Agreement of 12 December 1825 and of 13 May 1826 between the Swiss Confederation and the Crown of W\u00fcrttemberg concerning Bankruptcy Matters and the Equal Treatment of the Respective Nationals in Cases of Bankruptcy, the Agreement of 11 May 1834 and 27 June 1834 between the Swiss Cantons and the Kingdom of Bavaria on the Equal Treatment of their Respective Nationals in Bankruptcy Matters, and the Agreement of 4 February 1837 between the Swiss Cantons and the Kingdom of Saxony on the Equal Treatment of their Respective Nationals in Bankruptcy Matters.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>iv) where the claim is directed against a <strong>Swiss insolvent company<\/strong>, recovery is pursued by asserting rights within Swiss insolvency proceedings, typically under<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>the DEBA, in particular filing of claims, objections to the schedule of claims; avoidance actions (claw-back claims), and realisation and distribution of assets;<\/li>\n<li>the Swiss Code of Obligations (CO) for potential directors\u2019 and officers\u2019 liability claims pursuant to Art. 754 CO or tort claims under Art. 41 et seqq. CO.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>v) alternatively, in the absence of a prior judgment or foreign or domestic insolvency, recovery may be pursued by initiating <strong>direct civil proceedings in Switzerland<\/strong>, based on<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>applicable international conventions such as the Lugano Convention, the New York Convention, applicable Hague Conventions, relevant provision of the PILA and the CPC concerning jurisdiction and\/or the applicable substantive law and procedural law;<\/li>\n<li>the CO for tort claims (Art. 41 CO et seqq.); unjust enrichment (Art. 62 CO et seqq.); contractual claims;<\/li>\n<li>the Swiss Civil Code (CC) for proprietary claims, e.g. vindication claims (Art. 641 CC), general principles of good faith, the prohibition of abuse of rights (Art. 2 CC), and evidentiary principles such as Art. 8 CC.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>vi) where <strong>proceedings are pending abroad<\/strong>, asset recovery may be supported by:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The Hague Convention on Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters 1970;<\/li>\n<li>The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters 1965;<\/li>\n<li>relevant provisions of the PILA and the DEBA.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Often, asset recovery can also be pursued by initiating <strong>criminal proceedings<\/strong> (for example, in cases of commercial fraud, mismanagement, or similar offences). In Switzerland, an aggrieved party may participate in the criminal proceedings as a private claimant. As such, it has access to the case file, may request measures (such as the confiscation of assets, the production of bank statements), and may seek to recover its losses either through the allocation of confiscated assets or by asserting civil claims within the criminal proceedings (<em>Adh\u00e4sionsklage<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>In the context of foreign criminal proceedings, asset recovery may be supported by requesting mutual legal assistance from the Swiss authorities, in particular through the competent public prosecutors. Furthermore, where the case involves money laundering or illicit assets held by foreign politically exposed persons, specific criminal and administrative law mechanisms may apply.<\/p>\n<p>While these criminal and administrative avenues are of considerable practical importance, they are generally not addressed further in this questionnaire, which focuses on civil asset recovery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What types of assets may be subject to civil recovery proceedings (e.g., real property, bank accounts, securities, cryptocurrencies, intellectual property, business interests or other categories of property)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In principle, all identifiable assets with economic value that are transferable and not exempt from enforcement may be subject to civil recovery proceedings in Switzerland. Commonly targeted assets include, in particular:<\/p>\n<p>i) Bank accounts and cash assets;<\/p>\n<p>ii) Cryptocurrencies and digital assets;<\/p>\n<p>iii) Securities and financial instruments;<\/p>\n<p>iv) Immovable property (land and buildings located in Switzerland);<\/p>\n<p>v) Movable property (e.g., vehicles, machinery, artworks, jewellery and watches, inventory, and other tangible assets etc.);<\/p>\n<p>vi) Business interests (e.g., shares in LLCs, Ltds etc.) and claims for dividend payments ;<\/p>\n<p>vii) Contractual claims and receivables (e.g., loan claims, trade receivables, claims arising from contracts or tort, insurance claims);<\/p>\n<p>viii) Intellectual property rights (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights and designs, etc.).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the primary civil law causes of action and mechanisms available for asset recovery? Please briefly distinguish these from any criminal confiscation or forfeiture regimes.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><h4>I. Primary Swiss civil law actions<\/h4>\n<p>Primary Swiss civil law actions to achieve asset recovery are actions based on contract, tort, unjust enrichment, negotiorum gestio, and proprietary claims (vindication).<\/p>\n<h4>Contract<\/h4>\n<p>Contractual claims serve as an essential mechanism for asset recovery when funds or assets have been transferred pursuant to contractual relationships. Common remedies encompass claims for repayment, damages, interest, and contractual penalties.<\/p>\n<h4>Tort<\/h4>\n<p>Tort claims\u2014particularly those based on unlawful conduct, fault, and causation\u2014are pursued when assets have been dissipated in breach of absolute rights, such as proprietary interests, or resulting from other unlawful actions that infringe upon provisions safeguarding assets (Art. 41 et seqq. CO). In the asset recovery context, tort claims are most relevant in fraud cases.<\/p>\n<h4>Unjust Enrichment<\/h4>\n<p>Unjust enrichment claims are available where assets were transferred without valid legal basis, or where a legal basis subsequently fell away. These claims are frequently used where contractual relationships are disputed, void or unenforceable, or where funds were received by third parties without entitlement. Unjust enrichment actions are a flexible tool in asset recovery scenarios involving multiple recipients or intermediary entities.<\/p>\n<h4>Negotiorum Gestio (Management of Affairs Without Authority)<\/h4>\n<p>Negotiorum gestio may be relevant where a party has exercised unauthorised factual control over assets or business operations. In asset\u2011recovery practice, such claims typically arise alongside unjust enrichment claims rather than as stand\u2011alone actions and may permit the disgorgement of profits.<\/p>\n<h4>Proprietary Claims (Vindication)<\/h4>\n<p>Proprietary claims allow the recovery of specific assets that remain owned by the claimant. Vindication actions are often combined with interim measures to secure the assets pending a final decision.<\/p>\n<p>Vindication claims may allow recovery in rem and can defeat competing creditor claims in insolvency scenarios.<\/p>\n<h4>II. Criminal Confiscation and Forfeiture Regimes<\/h4>\n<h4>Seizure<\/h4>\n<p>According to Swiss criminal procedure law, assets may be seized at an initial stage of legal proceedings to maintain their availability. The purpose of seizure (<em>Beschlagnahme<\/em>) is to serve as a provisional procedural measure that prevents the dissipation, concealment, or transfer of assets potentially linked to criminal activity. Seizure does not constitute a transfer of ownership to the state, and it is reversible if the statutory conditions are no longer satisfied.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, requests for bank account statements and other documents may be made to obtain further information regarding the location of relevant assets.<\/p>\n<p>Where ownership is substantiated, immediate return of seized property to the rightful owner may be requested.<\/p>\n<h4>Forfeiture<\/h4>\n<p>Swiss criminal law provides for a comprehensive forfeiture (<em>Einziehung<\/em>) regime that is directly relevant to asset recovery. Courts may order the forfeiture of assets that constitute the proceeds of a criminal offence or that were intended to facilitate or reward criminal conduct. Where the assets are no longer available, Swiss law allows for equivalent monetary claims, ensuring that offenders or relevant third parties do not retain illicit economic benefits.<\/p>\n<p>Forfeiture may also extend to assets held by third parties who did not acquire them in good faith or without adequate consideration, and to assets subject to the control of criminal or terrorist organisations. Importantly, forfeited assets or their proceeds can, under statutory conditions, be allocated for the benefit of the injured party, thereby linking criminal forfeiture mechanisms directly with victim\u2011oriented asset recovery.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Who has standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g. private parties, corporations, trustees, insolvency practitioners, receivers, or state agencies)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Switzerland, any person or entity with a legally protected interest may initiate civil asset recovery proceedings. Standing depends on the legal basis of the claim and the procedural context. This may include private persons and legal entities, liquidators, trustees, and composition administrators, as well as states and state entities.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the legal status of foreign states or governmental entities bringing civil asset recovery actions? Are any limitations imposed by sovereign immunity, forum non conveniens, or other doctrines?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Foreign states and governmental entities may, in principle, initiate civil asset recovery proceedings in\u00a0Switzerland and are generally treated as ordinary parties, provided they assert claims of a private law nature (acta iure gestionis).<\/p>\n<p>Swiss law does not recognise the doctrine of forum non conveniens; jurisdiction is determined exclusively on the basis of applicable international conventions and domestic law (see question 1). Swiss courts cannot decline jurisdiction solely on the ground that another forum would be more appropriate.<\/p>\n<p>It is essential that foreign states refrain from exercising authority within Swiss territory. For example, foreign bankruptcy trustees or administrators are not permitted to issue claim letters or collect assets in Switzerland prior to recognition of the insolvency decree, foreign courts must not be taking evidence, conduct hearings with participants in Switzerland without fulfilling the requirements pursuant the respective applicable legal instruments. Breaches of these requirements may result in criminal penalties pursuant to Art. 271 of the Swiss Criminal Code (Blocking Statute).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are corporate vehicles, trusts, foundations, nominees and other intermediaries treated in civil recovery proceedings when pursuing assets held through layered structures? Are veil-piercing or analogous doctrines available?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law recognises the separate legal personality of corporate vehicles, foundations and other legal entities. As a general rule, assets held by such entities are treated as belonging to the entity itself and not to its shareholders, beneficiaries or controllers. Accordingly, civil asset recovery must, in principle, be directed against the legal owner of the asset.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss law focuses on legal ownership, but:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>nominee arrangements may be challenged where they conceal the true beneficial owner;<\/li>\n<li>courts may look beyond formal ownership in cases of abuse or fraud.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Switzerland recognises limited forms of veil-piercing under the doctrine of Durchgriff (piercing the corporate veil) and the broader prohibition of abuse of rights (Art. 2 CC).<\/p>\n<p>Swiss courts may disregard the separate legal personality of an entity where there is an identity between the entity and the controlling person (economic unity) and where reliance on the corporate form constitutes a\u00a0manifest abuse of rights. This may be the case, in particular, where the entity is used to evade legal obligations, to shield assets in bad faith, or as part of a fraudulent or otherwise abusive structure.<\/p>\n<p>This doctrine is applied restrictively and only in exceptional circumstances.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, in limited circumstances, Swiss courts have disregarded the formally registered owner in the land register and recognised a different person as the true owner. This has occurred, in particular, in cases where real estate was registered in the name of a spouse or partner who, in light of the circumstances, could not reasonably have afforded to acquire the property, indicating that the registered ownership did not reflect the underlying economic reality.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the jurisdictional requirements for bringing civil asset recovery proceedings in the courts of your jurisdiction? How are conflicts of jurisdiction resolved?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><h4>I. Jurisdiction<\/h4>\n<p>Jurisdiction in civil asset recovery proceedings in Switzerland is determined by the applicable legal instruments such as international conventions and\/or domestic law (see question 1).<\/p>\n<p>i) Asset Recovery by Enforcement of <strong>Swiss or<\/strong> ii) <strong>foreign judgments or arbitral awards<\/strong>:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Enforcement of monetary claims is governed by the DEBA, with proceedings generally initiated at the debtor\u2019s domicile or registered seat (Art. 46 DEBA) and, for attachment (Arrest) proceedings, at the location of the assets (Art. 52 DEBA).<\/li>\n<li>Enforcement of non-monetary claims is governed by the CPC (Art. 339 CPC), which provides for alternative jurisdiction at the domicile or registered seat of the unsuccessful party, at the place of enforcement, or at the place where the decision was rendered.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>ii) Asset Recovery in the context of a <strong>foreign insolvency<\/strong> must be sought before the competent Swiss court at the place where the debtor\u2019s assets are located in Switzerland (Art. 166 PILA).<\/p>\n<p>The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) is competent to recognise foreign bank insolvency decrees (Art. 37g of Federal Act on Banks and Savings Institutions).<\/p>\n<p>Asset Recovery within <strong>Swiss Insolvency Proceedings<\/strong> are opened at the debtor\u2019s domicile or registered seat (Art. 46 and 171 DEBA). Upon the opening of bankruptcy, individual enforcement actions are barred, and creditors must assert their claims within the collective insolvency proceedings in accordance with the principle of equal treatment of creditors.<\/p>\n<p>Avoidance (claw-back) actions must generally be brought before the court at the defendant\u2019s domicile. If the defendant has no domicile in Switzerland, jurisdiction lies at the place of the bankruptcy (Art. 289 DEBA).<\/p>\n<p>iv) Jurisdiction for <strong>civil proceedings in Switzerland<\/strong> is established by the relevant international conventions, including the Lugano Convention and applicable Hague Conventions, as well as the PILA in cross-border matters. For domestic cases, jurisdiction is determined in accordance with the provisions of the CPC.<\/p>\n<p>In all regimes, the primary ground of jurisdiction is the defendant\u2019s domicile or registered seat (Art. 10 CPC; Art. 2 PILA; Art. 2 Lugano Convention), complemented by specific fora such as the place of performance (Art. 31 CPC; Art. 113 PILA; Art. 5(1) Lugano Convention) and in tort cases at the place where the harmful event occurred (Art. 36 CPC; Art. 129 PILA; Art. 5(3) Lugano Convention).<\/p>\n<p>In addition, jurisdiction may arise at the location of assets in Switzerland, particularly in connection with interim measures or attachments (e.g. Art. 13 CPC, Art. 10 PILA, Art. 31 Lugano Convention, and Art. 272 DEBA).<\/p>\n<p>Jurisdiction may further be based on choice of court agreements, subject to the requirements of the PILA (Art. 5 PILA), the CPC (Art. 17 CPC), and applicable international instruments, in particular the Lugano Convention (Art. 23) and, where applicable, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005. While the wording differs, these regimes impose largely convergent requirements. In particular, the agreement must:<\/p>\n<p>i) be validly concluded between the parties with capacity;\u00a0ii) be in writing or in a form allowing it to be evidenced by text (including electronic communications);\u00a0iii) clearly designate a specific court or the courts of a particular state;\u00a0iv) relate to a dispute concerning a particular legal relationship;\u00a0v) not violate mandatory jurisdiction rules (e.g. exclusive fora) or public policy; and vi) under the Hague Convention, be exclusive in nature.<\/p>\n<p>Switzerland also recognises arbitration agreements pursuant to Chapter 12 PILA (Art. 176 et seq.).<\/p>\n<p>v) Where <strong>proceedings are pending abroad<\/strong>, asset recovery may be supported through judicial assistance by the competent Swiss authorities at the place where evidence is to be taken or documents are to be served. These instruments do not confer jurisdiction on Swiss courts over the merits, but provide for cooperation.<\/p>\n<h4>II. Conflicts of Jurisdiction<\/h4>\n<p>Conflicts of jurisdiction are primarily addressed through the doctrine of <em>lis pendens<\/em>. Under Art. 9 PILA, Swiss courts may stay proceedings if the same dispute between the same parties is already pending abroad and it is expected that the foreign decision will be capable of recognition in Switzerland. Under the Lugano Convention, stricter lis pendens rules apply, requiring the court second seized to stay proceedings until the jurisdiction of the court first seized has been established.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Does your jurisdiction recognize and enforce foreign civil judgments and orders relating to asset recovery? What are the procedural requirements and grounds for refusal?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Foreign civil judgments on the merits relating to asset recovery are generally recognised and enforced in Switzerland. For the applicable legal framework see question 1.<\/p>\n<p>Recognition is subject to broadly aligned conditions across these regimes. In particular, the foreign decision must:<\/p>\n<p>i) have been rendered by a competent authority; ii) be final and binding (under the PILA but not under the Lugano Convention); iii) comply with fundamental procedural guarantees, including proper service and the right to be heard; iv) not be manifestly incompatible with Swiss public policy; and v) not conflict with an existing Swiss judgment or a prior foreign decision capable of recognition in Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>A review on the merits is excluded.<\/p>\n<p>Under the PILA, recognition and enforcement require an application before the competent cantonal court, whereas under the Lugano Convention recognition is, in principle, automatic, subject to limited grounds for refusal (but a declaration of enforceability may be requested). Once recognised, foreign judgments are enforced in Switzerland in the same manner as domestic decisions. Monetary claims are enforced under the DEBA, while non-monetary claims are enforced under the CPC (see question 1).<\/p>\n<p>It remains controversial whether foreign interim measures may be recognised under the PILA. In practice, it is often more effective to seek equivalent relief in Switzerland, in particular through attachment (Arrest) proceedings. Under the Lugano Convention, however, certain provisional measures may be recognised and enforced, provided that the court of origin had jurisdiction on the merits and minimum due process requirements are satisfied.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What mechanisms exist for international cooperation in civil cross-border asset recovery? How can parties obtain evidence or assistance from foreign jursidictions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>International cooperation in civil cross-border asset recovery is based on a combination of treaty mechanisms, domestic procedural law, and cooperation between courts and authorities.<\/p>\n<p>In particular, parties may obtain evidence and procedural assistance through international instruments such as the Hague Evidence Convention (1970) and the Hague Service Convention (1965), which provide for the taking of evidence abroad and the service of judicial documents through designated central authorities. These instruments do not confer jurisdiction on Swiss courts but enable judicial assistance by the competent Swiss authorities at the place where the evidence is located or documents are to be served. In addition, Swiss law (in particular the CPC and the PILA) governs the execution of such requests.<\/p>\n<p>Requests for judicial assistance are subject to broadly aligned requirements. In particular, they must:<\/p>\n<p>i) originate from a competent foreign authority;<\/p>\n<p>ii) relate to pending or at least contemplated civil proceedings;<\/p>\n<p>iii) clearly describe the requested measures (e.g. taking of\u00a0evidence, document production or service) and their relevance to the proceedings; iv) comply with applicable formal requirements, including, where necessary, translation into an official Swiss language; and<\/p>\n<p>v) not violate Swiss public policy or fundamental procedural guarantees. Requests that are overly broad or amount to \u201cfishing expeditions\u201d are generally not executed.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss authorities execute foreign requests in accordance with Swiss procedural law, which may impose limitations, in particular with respect to the scope of evidence-taking.<\/p>\n<p>Overall, Switzerland provides a cooperative and treaty-based framework enabling effective cross-border evidence gathering and procedural assistance, while maintaining a clear distinction between jurisdiction over the merits and judicial support functions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim measures are available to preserve assets pending resolution (e.g. freezing injunctions, Mareva injunctions, asset preservation orders, saisie conservatoire, attachments)? Please briefly summarise the requirements for obtaining such relief.<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides for a range of interim measures to preserve assets pending the resolution of a dispute.<\/p>\n<p>The most important instrument in the context of asset recovery is the <strong>attachment<\/strong> (<em>Arrest<\/em>).<\/p>\n<p>Attachment proceedings are of particular practical importance, as they allow assets to be frozen without prior notice to the debtor. The attachment is initiated through an application to the court and carried out by the relevant debt enforcement office at the location of the assets.<\/p>\n<p>The requirements for an attachment under the DEBA are:<\/p>\n<p>i) a monetary claim;<\/p>\n<p>ii) the existence of a statutory ground for attachment; A statutory basis for attachment may include circumstances where the debtor lacks a permanent domicile, demonstrates intent to avoid fulfilling obligations, is not established or resident in Switzerland, or where there exists a judgment or arbitral award on the merits; and<\/p>\n<p>iii) identifiable assets located in Switzerland (see question 2). Swiss law does not provide for general disclosure obligations, nor does it recognise global freezing injunctions. The applicant must therefore credibly demonstrate that specific assets exist in Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, the CPC provides for interim measures in respect of non-monetary claims, such as injunctions, orders to rectify unlawful situations, addressed to registration authorities or third parties, and for specific performance.<\/p>\n<p>Interim relief requires the applicant to:<\/p>\n<p>i) establish a prima facie claim (see question 4);<\/p>\n<p>ii) threatened harm (e.g. if there is a risk that enforcement would otherwise be frustrated or significantly hindered, in particular due to a risk of dissipation of assets);<\/p>\n<p>iii) and special urgency in case of ex parte applications.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSpecial urgency\u201d within the meaning of Art. 265 CPC exists where the purpose of a requested interim measure would be frustrated or seriously jeopardised if the court were required to hear the opposing party beforehand, such that immediate judicial intervention without prior notice is indispensable. Special urgency presupposes an acute risk\u2014typically a risk of frustration or circumvention of the measure\u2014and is excluded where the applicant has unreasonably delayed in seeking relief.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure, tracing, and investigative tools are available in civil proceedings to assist claimants in identifying, tracing, and recovering assets (including any pre-action or in-proceedings mechanisms)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides limited disclosure and investigative tools in civil proceedings, reflecting the absence of common law\u2013style discovery. There is no general pre-action disclosure, and parties are not subject to broad obligations to disclose all relevant documents. Access to evidence is therefore based on targeted procedural mechanisms.<\/p>\n<p>In pending proceedings, parties may request the production of specific documents under the CPC, provided that the documents are sufficiently identified and relevant. The court may also order third parties to produce documents, subject to limitations, in particular legal privilege and confidentiality. If a party refuses to produce documents without valid reason, the court may take this into account in its assessment of the evidence.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss law further allows for the precautionary taking of evidence (vorsorgliche Beweisf\u00fchrung), including prior to the initiation of proceedings, where there is a legitimate interest, in particular a risk that evidence may be lost or where the measure is necessary to assess the prospects of a claim.<\/p>\n<p>Where a substantive right to information exists, Swiss procedural law provides additional tools to obtain disclosure:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>in clear case proceedings (summary proceedings), where the right is sufficiently specific, disclosure may be obtained quickly and cost-effectively;<\/li>\n<li>by way of an action by stages (Stufenklage), where the scope of the information must first be determined before quantifying the claim; and<\/li>\n<li>by requesting an order in summary proceedings during the main proceedings (typically during divorce proceedings).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>In addition, parties may rely on public registers (such as land register, IP rights register) to identify assets.<\/p>\n<p>In high-stakes cross-border cases, parties should consider all available legal remedies across relevant jurisdictions to obtain information, in particular in jurisdictions offering broader disclosure or discovery mechanisms. In addition, engaging experienced and reputable asset tracing specialists may be beneficial.<\/p>\n<p>In cases involving criminal conduct, it may be advisable to file a criminal complaint. An aggrieved party may participate in the Swiss criminal proceedings as a private claimant, thereby gaining access to the case file and the ability to request investigative measures, including searches, the freezing of bank accounts, and the production of bank records. Participation in Swiss criminal proceedings may therefore constitute a particularly effective tool for obtaining information and facilitating asset recovery.<\/p>\n<p>In insolvency proceedings, access to information is significantly broader. Creditors typically have access to the insolvency file and to all business records of the insolvent company. This includes extensive information on the debtor\u2019s financial situation, including access to accounting documents, contracts, employment records, etc.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What proprietary or analogous remedies (e.g., in rem claims, restitutionary claims, vindicatory actions) are available for recovering misappropriated assets?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides effective but structured remedies for asset recovery, with a clear distinction between proprietary claims for restitution in kind and personal claims for compensation.<\/p>\n<p>The primary proprietary remedy is the vindication claim (rei vindicatio) (Art. 641 CC), which allows the owner to recover specific property from an unlawful possessor. This remedy requires proof of ownership and is directed at the return of the asset in kind.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, Swiss law recognises unjust enrichment claims (Art. 62 et seq CO, which allow recovery where a party has been enriched without legal basis at the expense of another. Such claims are particularly relevant where the original asset can no longer be identified or has been transferred.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the relevant limitation periods for civil asset recovery claims? Are there extensions or suspensions in cases involving fraud, concealment, or delayed discovery?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>The applicable limitation periods for civil asset recovery claims in Switzerland depend on the legal basis of the claim, with different regimes applying to contractual, tort, and restitutionary claims.<\/p>\n<p>As a general rule, contractual claims are subject to a limitation period of ten years, unless a shorter period applies (e.g. five years for certain periodic claims) (Art. 127 et seq. CO).<\/p>\n<p>Tort claims are subject to a relative limitation period of three years from the date on which the aggrieved party became aware (or should have become aware) of the damage and the identity of the liable party, and an absolute limitation period of ten years from the date of the harmful act. In cases involving personal injury, longer periods may apply (Art. 60 CO).<\/p>\n<p>Unjust enrichment claims are subject to a limitation period of three years from the date of knowledge of the claim and, in any event, ten years from the date the claim arose (Art. 67 CO).<\/p>\n<p>Certain proprietary claims, in particular vindication claims (Art. 641 CC), are in principle not subject to limitation, although rights may be lost through acquisitive prescription (e.g. good faith acquisition of movables or long-term possession of immovable property).<\/p>\n<p>In the context of insolvency, avoidance actions (actio pauliana) are subject to specific time limits, typically linked to the opening of insolvency proceedings and the timing of the challenged transaction (Art. 285 et seq. DEBA).<\/p>\n<p>Limitation periods may be interrupted (e.g. by initiating court or debt enforcement proceedings) (Art. 135 CO) or suspended under certain statutory conditions (Art. 134 CO).<\/p>\n<p>In cases involving criminal conduct (such as fraud),\u00a0limitation periods follow a specific regime. The criminal limitation period depends on the maximum penalty applicable to the offence and ranges from at least seven years (for offences punishable by a custodial sentence of less than three years) up to 30 years (for offences punishable by life imprisonment) (cf. Art. 97 para. 1 Swiss Criminal Code; Art. 146 Swiss Criminal Code).<\/p>\n<p>Civil claims for damages arising from criminal conduct are subject to the same limitation period as the corresponding criminal offence, if this period is longer than the ordinary civil limitation period (Art. 60 para. 3 CO).<\/p>\n<p>Where a criminal conviction is obtained before the expiry of the criminal limitation period, the civil claim becomes time-barred three years after the criminal judgment becomes final (Art. 60 para. 3 CO).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What is the applicable standard of proof in civil asset recovery proceedings? How does this compare to the criminal standard, if relevant?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Swiss civil proceedings, the general standard of proof is full conviction of the court. According to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, a fact is deemed proven where the court, based on objective criteria, is convinced of its accuracy and considers any remaining doubts to be insignificant.<\/p>\n<p>Exceptions to this standard exist. In particular, a preponderance of probability may suffice where strict proof is not possible or cannot reasonably be expected due to the nature of the case (e.g. in complex factual situations or where evidence is inherently difficult to obtain).<\/p>\n<p>A lower standard applies in certain procedural contexts, notably prima facie evidence (Glaubhaftmachung), which is required in proceedings for interim measures and attachments (freezing orders). Under this standard, a fact is considered established if it appears more likely than not, without excluding the possibility that events may have occurred differently.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Where does the burden of proof lie, and are there any evidential presumptions or burden-shifting mechanisms (e.g. in cases involving unexplained wealth or transactions at an undervalue)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Swiss law, the burden of proof is governed by Art. 8\u00a0CC. As a general rule, the party deriving a right from an\u00a0alleged fact must prove that fact.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, a claimant must establish the elements of its claim (e.g. damage, causation, or unjust enrichment), while the respondent must prove the facts supporting its defence.<\/p>\n<p>Exceptions to this principle (burden-shifting \/ Beweislastumkehr) may arise in specific circumstances. In particular:<\/p>\n<p>i) Statutory presumptions: certain provisions establish presumptions that shift the burden of proof, such as the presumption of fault under Art. 97 para. 1 CO, requiring the respondent to prove the absence of fault;<\/p>\n<p>ii) Obstruction of evidence: where a party has unlawfully made it more difficult or impossible for the opposing party to adduce evidence, courts may draw adverse inferences;<\/p>\n<p>iii) Negative facts: where a party is required to prove the non-existence of a fact, Swiss courts may relax the burden of proof or effectively shift it to the opposing party;<\/p>\n<p>In addition, in specific contexts such as insolvency proceedings, statutory rules (in particular avoidance actions under the DEBA) may provide for presumptions or reversed burdens of proof, for example in relation to transactions at an undervalue or preferential treatment of creditors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What defences are available to respondents in civil asset recovery proceedings (e.g., change of position, limitation, laches, good-faith purchaser for value)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Respondents in civil asset recovery proceedings may rely on a range of procedural and substantive defences, depending on the legal basis of the claim.<\/p>\n<h4>Procedural Defences<\/h4>\n<p>In addition, Respondents may raise procedural defences, including lack of jurisdiction, improper service, or violations of due process, etc..<\/p>\n<h4>Substantive Defences<\/h4>\n<p>Typical substantive defences encompass the expiration of the statute of limitations, as well as issues concerning standing.<\/p>\n<p>In cases based on unjust enrichment, the respondent may argue that the enrichment was justified by a valid legal basis. Similarly,\u00a0a respondent may invoke a change of position defence, arguing that it is no longer enriched.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss law also recognises the protection of good faith,\u00a0which may be particularly relevant in proprietary claims. A good-faith acquirer for value may acquire valid title to certain assets (in particular movables) even if the transferor was not entitled to dispose of them, subject to statutory conditions. In such cases, vindication claims may be excluded.<\/p>\n<p>Further defences include the absence of unlawful conduct, causation, or damage in tort claims, as well as contractual defences, such as the existence of a valid contractual basis or the proper performance of obligations.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are third-party rights protected in civil recovery proceedings? What mechanisms exist for innocent parties to assert their interests in assets subject to recovery claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides robust protection for third-party rights in civil asset recovery proceedings, in particular through substantive property law principles and procedural safeguards.<\/p>\n<p>Third parties may assert their rights directly in the proceedings where assets are subject to recovery. In particular, a third party claiming ownership or a superior right may intervene in the proceedings or initiate separate actions to assert its rights. In the context of debt enforcement, third parties may file a third-party claim to challenge the inclusion of assets in enforcement or attachment proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>In insolvency proceedings, third parties may assert their rights through segregation (Aussonderung) or separation (Absonderung) claims, ensuring that assets not belonging to the debtor or subject to security rights are protected.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, third parties may rely on contractual or security rights (e.g. pledges or assignments) to assert priority over assets.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss law further protects good-faith acquirers for value, who may acquire valid title to certain assets (in particular movables) even if the transferor lacked authority to dispose of them, subject to statutory conditions. In such cases, proprietary recovery claims may be excluded.<\/p>\n<p>Procedurally, courts must respect due process rights, ensuring that affected third parties have the opportunity to be heard before measures affecting their rights are confirmed. Interim measures such as attachment may initially be granted without notice, but third parties have the right to challenge such measures subsequently.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How does your jurisdiction classify cryptocurrencies and other digital assets for civil recovery purposes? Are they capable of being held on trust or subject to proprietary or equivalent claims?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Swiss law, cryptocurrencies and other digital assets are generally classified as assets and are capable of being the subject of civil law claims, including asset recovery proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Such assets may, in principle, be subject to proprietary and restitutionary claims, including claims based on unjust enrichment or tort. Where control over digital assets can be established (e.g. through private keys), Swiss courts may recognise a form of factual control comparable to ownership, allowing claimants to seek their recovery or the transfer of control.<\/p>\n<p>In enforcement and insolvency contexts, cryptocurrencies are generally treated as seizable assets, provided they can be identified and accessed. In practice, enforcement depends on the ability to locate and secure the relevant private keys or custodial accounts.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What interim relief mechanisms exist for freezing or preserving digital assets (e.g., access to private keys, hardware wallets, exchange-held accounts)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides effective interim relief mechanisms to preserve digital assets, based on existing tools for asset preservation.<\/p>\n<p>The primary instrument is attachment (Arrest) under the DEBA, which may be used to freeze cryptocurrencies and other digital assets located in Switzerland, including assets held with custodial intermediaries (e.g. exchanges or wallet providers). In such cases, the competent authority may order the custodian to block the relevant accounts or transfer rights.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, the CPC provides for interim measures, including orders to preserve the status quo or prevent dissipation of assets. Courts may, for example, order a party to refrain from transferring digital assets, to disclose access credentials, or to take specific steps to secure control over such assets.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What disclosure and tracing, disclosure and investigative tools are available for identifying and following digital asset transactions, and what practical challenges arise in obtaining information from exchanges or service providers?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides limited but targeted disclosure and investigative tools for identifying and tracing digital assets, consistent with the general absence of broad discovery in civil proceedings. More intrusive investigative measures (e.g. access to account data) are typically only available in criminal proceedings, where authorities have broader powers (see above questions 1 and 11).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are legal costs allocated in civil asset recovery proceedings? What is the general rule on costs, and what exceptions apply?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Under Swiss law, legal costs are generally allocated according to the outcome of the proceedings. As a rule, the unsuccessful party bears the court costs and must compensate the successful party for its legal fees (party compensation), in accordance with the CPC (the \u201closer pays\u201d principle).<\/p>\n<p>Court costs are determined by the court and depend on the value in dispute and the complexity of the case, while party compensation is typically calculated based on cantonal tariffs, which often do not fully cover the actual legal fees incurred.<\/p>\n<p>Costs for summary proceedings (e.g. interim measures or clear case proceedings) are generally lower than in main proceedings and may be capped in certain cantons.<\/p>\n<p>Where a party is only partially successful, costs are allocated proportionately. Courts may also deviate from the general rule and allocate costs at their discretion were justified by the circumstances, for example in cases involving procedural misconduct, unnecessary costs, or equitable considerations. In addition, many steps in debt enforcement proceedings are subject to a federal fee ordinance, resulting in capped and comparatively cost-effective procedures.<\/p>\n<p>Similarly, a creditor\u2019s participation in insolvency proceedings generally does not entail any costs. Participation as a private claimant in criminal proceedings is also typically not associated with court costs.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">Are third-party funding, contingency fees, conditional fee arrangements, or damages-based agreements, or other alternative funding mechanisms available? What are the rules on security for costs?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Switzerland, third-party funding and conditional fee arrangements are possible. In 2005, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court recognized third-party funding as legal under Swiss law. The Swiss Federal Supreme Court requires that the attorney has to be independent of the third-party funder. At the same time, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court established that any interests that an attorney may have for staying in the good graces of a third party funder (specifically, financial stability for ensuring payment of their fees) do not in themselves constitute a conflict of interests or an indicator for law of independence of the attorney.<\/p>\n<p>Attorneys registered in Switzerland may agree on contingency fees or conditional fee arrangements. Such arrangements have to comply with the limitations set out by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court and the Federal Act on the Freedom of Movement of Lawyers (AFML).<\/p>\n<p>Under Swiss law, a conditional fee arrangement where an attorney will be compensated for his\/her work purely based on the success of the client\u2019s petition (\u201cno win no fee\u201d) is prohibited (cf. Art. 12 lit. e AFML). Such an arrangement is incompatible with the obligation of Swiss attorneys to remain independent under Article 12 lit. b AFML.<\/p>\n<p>To ensure that an attorney may remain independent in the representation of the client\u2019s interests, the contingency fee arrangement has to be accompanied by a fee arrangement based on the actual hours the attorney put in. The costs of the attorney have to be covered and there has to be a reasonable profit margin independently of the contingency fee. Thus, only up to 49% of the net revenue of the case may be charged as an additional contingency fee. In practice, contingency fees will range between 20% and 40%.<\/p>\n<p>Security for costs may be granted under Swiss law under certain circumstances:<\/p>\n<p>In civil proceedings, security for costs may be requested by the respondent under Article 99 para. 1 CCP, when the claimant<\/p>\n<p>i) Does not have a domicile in Switzerland or its registered office in Switzerland;<\/p>\n<p>ii) Appears to be bankrupt, specifically where insolvency\u00a0proceedings have been started;<\/p>\n<p>iii) Owes payment of procedural costs from previous proceedings; or<\/p>\n<p>iv) For other reasons, there is reason to fear that the accused\u2019s claim could be seriously jeopardized or frustrated.<\/p>\n<p>Notably, in an international context such an application for security for costs based solely on the claimant\u2019s seat outside of Switzerland may be excluded (cf. Article 51 Lugano Convention; Art. 14 Hague Convention on International Access to Justice 1980; Art. 17 Hague Convention on Civil Procedure 1954).<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How do insolvency proceedings interact with civil asset recovery actions? Can tracing or proprietary claims be pursued within insolvency, and what priority do such claims receive?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>In Switzerland, insolvency proceedings centralise asset recovery and have a significant impact on individual civil claims. Upon the opening of bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor\u2019s assets form part of the insolvency estate, and individual enforcement actions are generally stayed, with creditors required to assert their claims within the collective proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Creditors must file their claims in the insolvency proceedings and participate in the schedule of claims. Ordinary monetary claims are satisfied according to the statutory ranking of claims and the available estate.<\/p>\n<p>However, proprietary claims remain unaffected by insolvency. Third parties may assert that specific assets do not belong to the estate by way of segregation (Aussonderung), allowing them to recover assets in kind where ownership can be established. Similarly, secured creditors may assert separation rights (Absonderung), entitling them to preferential satisfaction from the proceeds of the encumbered assets.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, insolvency law provides for avoidance actions (actio pauliana), enabling the insolvency administration (or, in certain cases, creditors) to challenge transactions that are detrimental to creditors, such as gifts, transactions at an undervalue, or preferential payments made prior to insolvency. Recovered assets are reintegrated into the estate for the benefit of all creditors.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">How are claims for the recovery of misappropriated assets treated in the insolvency of the wrongdoer or intermediary? What is the relationship between civil recovery and insolvency clawback or avoidance provisions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Once insolvency proceedings are opened, recovery efforts are generally pursued within the framework of the insolvency proceedings, thereby centralising enforcement and ensuring an orderly and collective process for all creditors. In this context, the insolvency estate\u2014and, in certain circumstances, individual creditors\u2014may pursue directors\u2019 and officers\u2019 liability claims against the governing bodies of the insolvent company where mismanagement or breaches of duty have contributed to the company\u2019s losses or insolvency.<\/p>\n<p>Additionally, Swiss insolvency law provides for avoidance actions (actio pauliana), which allow the insolvency administration\u2014and, under specific conditions, individual creditors\u2014to challenge transactions detrimental to creditors. These include transactions at an undervalue, preferential payments, and acts carried out with the intent to prejudice creditors. Avoidance actions are distinct from individual civil recovery claims and generally serve a collective purpose, as successful challenges lead to the reintegration of assets into the insolvency estate for the benefit of all creditors. Individual creditors may only seek preferential satisfaction if the relevant claims have been formally assigned to them by the insolvency estate.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What are the key practical challenges facing practitioners in asset tracing and recovery (e.g., complex structures, offshore jurisdictions, banking secrecy, non-cooperative intermediaries)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Swiss law provides only limited disclosure mechanisms in civil proceedings, and there is no broad discovery. This makes the identification and specification of assets at an\u00a0early stage particularly challenging, especially as applicants for attachment (Arrest) must credibly demonstrate the existence of specific assets in Switzerland.<\/p>\n<p>In addition, service of documents may pose significant practical difficulties in cross-border cases, potentially delaying proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Although Swiss banking secrecy does not prevent compliance with court orders, it restricts access to information at the outset. In practice, applicants in attachment proceedings often do not know the exact amount held in a bank account and may only obtain precise information once the attachment has been executed.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What strategic considerations arise when choosing between different civil causes of action or pursuing parallel proceedings? Can civil proceedings be stayed pending related criminal or regulatory actions?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>Strategic considerations in asset recovery proceedings in Switzerland primarily concern the choice of legal basis, the availability of evidence, and the interaction between parallel proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>Claimants must carefully assess whether to rely on proprietary claims, contractual or tort claims, or unjust enrichment, as each entails different requirements in terms of burden of proof, limitation periods, and available remedies. In particular, proprietary claims may allow recovery in kind but require strict identification of assets, whereas personal claims (e.g. damages or unjust enrichment) may be easier to establish but only lead to monetary recovery.<\/p>\n<p>A key consideration is the availability of evidence. Given the limited disclosure in civil proceedings, it may be\u00a0strategically advantageous to initiate or rely on criminal proceedings, which offer broader investigative powers and access to information. Similarly, insolvency proceedings may provide enhanced transparency and additional recovery tools, such as avoidance actions.<\/p>\n<p>Parallel proceedings are common in practice, including combinations of civil, criminal, and insolvency proceedings, as well as actions in multiple jurisdictions. These may be used complementarily, for example to secure assets through attachment proceedings while pursuing the merits elsewhere.<\/p>\n<p>Swiss courts may, under the CPC, stay civil proceedings where there are related criminal or regulatory proceedings, in particular where the outcome of such proceedings is relevant to the civil case. However, a stay is not automatic and remains at the court\u2019s discretion, taking into account considerations of efficiency and procedural fairness.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<li class=\"question-block filter-container__element\">\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<h3 class=\"filter-container__match-html\">What significant recent cases, reforms, or emerging trends have affected asset recovery practice (including developments in sanctions regimes, beneficial ownership transparency, AML rules, or cross-border enforcement)?<\/h3>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<button id=\"show-me\">+<\/button>\r\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<div class=\"question_answer filter-container__match-html\" style=\"display:none;\"><p>An important development is the ratification of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements 2005 which entered into force in Switzerland on 1 January 2025. This is of particular practical relevance in relation to the United Kingdom post-Brexit, as it provides a framework for the recognition and enforcement of judgments based on exclusive jurisdiction clauses.<\/p>\n<p>In parallel, the implementation of international sanctions regimes, in particular in connection with Russia-related sanctions, has led to increased efforts by Swiss authorities to identify and freeze assets, which may indirectly support asset tracing, albeit within a public law framework.<\/p>\n<\/div>\r\n\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/li>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t\t\r\n<div class=\"word-count-hidden\" style=\"display:none;\">Estimated word count: <span class=\"word-count\">7998<\/span><\/div>\r\n\r\n\t\t\t<\/ol>\r\n\r\n<script type=\"text\/javascript\" src=\"\/wp-content\/themes\/twentyseventeen\/src\/jquery\/components\/filter-guides.js\" async><\/script><\/div>"}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide\/136554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comparative_guide"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/comparative_guide"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/my.legal500.com\/guides\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=136554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}