Reversing the burden of proof: Swiss Parliament opens debate on money laundering

Federal deputies have approved an initiative that could oblige anyone holding suspect funds to justify their legal origin. The banking sector is concerned.

Reversing the burden of proof: Swiss Parliament opens debate on money laundering

Reversing the burden of proof: Swiss Parliament opens debate on money laundering

On Tuesday, the lower chamber of the Swiss Parliament approved a proposal that could substantially modify the prosecution of capital laundering. Vaud Green Liberal deputy Céline Weber garnered 103 votes in favour against 83 in opposition for her text.

The principle being defended is straightforward: whoever holds assets whose source appears questionable should be required to establish their legality. Currently, the obligation falls on investigators to demonstrate the criminal nature of seized assets. The deputy wishes to reverse this logic.

The government is now asked to study whether such a measure would be appropriate within the framework of confiscation of fortunes manifestly derived from offences. Weber believes that this would provide a means of combating street drug trafficking by striking the financial circuits that fuel it. She clarifies that those targeted would be individuals suspected of serious crimes, not the general public.

Actors in the banking world are expressing strong resistance. They believe that such a change risks hindering the national financial centre and weakening its attractiveness on the international stage.

A comparable model has been in operation in France for approximately twelve years. Following the Cahuzac scandal in 2013, the authorities across the Rhine implemented regulations of this type. French anti-fraud magistrates have substantially transformed their approach since then.

If this reform were to succeed, the use of shell companies and intermediaries based in tax havens could be considered a telltale sign of money laundering. This is for now merely a consultation: the executive must now assess whether a reversal of the burden of proof is legally feasible and desirable.

Source: Le Temps

Source: Le Temps

Read this article in the original language