Dawn raids in Switzerland: Best practices under the revised criminal procedure code

Introduction

Since the revision of the Code of Criminal Procedure (« CPP »), which came into force on 1 January 2024, banking secrecy and trade secrets are no longer grounds for preventing access to information, particularly during a raid. These new provisions have been the subject of several landmark rulings by the Federal Court, which have confirmed the limited grounds on which you can oppose the seizure of documents or data by the criminal prosecution authorities.

The revision of the CPP provides an opportunity to review how a raid should be conducted and the best practices that a company should adopt to anticipate and react appropriately to the threat of a raid.

What is a dawn raid under Swiss law?

A dawn raid is an unannounced inspection, often conducted early in the morning, by regulatory authorities to gather evidence of suspected law violations.  They are provided for by the CPP and the Federal Act on Administrative Criminal Law (« DPA »).   They are used to collect evidence during criminal or administrative investigations, especially in cases involving taxes.

A dawn raid is authorised by a public prosecutor or a federal authority responsible for enforcing administrative criminal law (« the relevant authorities »), notably the federal tax administration, to take place in offices or a place where it is suspected that evidence (documents, recordings or other objects) may be located.

In the case of an emergency, a raid may be authorised orally but this must always be confirmed in writing later by the relevant authority.

Who may conduct a search and who must be present? 

A raid is conducted by the judicial police, sometimes accompanied by a prosecutor or an investigative officer from the federal authority in charge of the investigation. If present, the owners of the premises, either the company's management or persons designated by it, are required to attend.

The parties to the investigation (the defendant and any of the parties who have made the complaint) are not allowed to participate in the raid, both in investigations governed by the CPP (art. 147 para. 1 a contrario CPP)¹ and those governed by the DPA (art. 49 para. 2 a contrario DPA).

Best practices for organisations facing a Swiss dawn raid 

Internal preparation and task force appointment

Any company likely to be subject to criminal investigation – which is more or less every company – must train its staff for the possibility of a search and prepare for it.

Adopting a set of conduct rules and appointing a dedicated group of people (a Task Force) responsible for managing both the situation and contact with the relevant authorities is recommended to ensure the investigation is conducted in accordance with the rights of the parties involved.

It is recommended that several people be appointed, ideally, a member of the management, the head of the legal department, and the company's external lawyer, although the presence of the latter is not always necessary².

A Task Force leader and a deputy leader should be appointed. They will act as contacts for the company and will establish initial communications with the relevant authorities and police. 

Conduct during the dawn raid: roles, rights and obligations

Reception staff

Reception staff must be prepared for this eventuality. They should remain composed and refrain from answering questions in relation to the investigation. They must immediately contact the Task Force members who should promptly meet the authority representatives at the reception.

In the meantime, reception staff should arrange for employees, who have been selected in advance, to accompany the representatives of the relevant authority. These designated employees should be responsible for recording each action, locations visited, documents seized, and any questions asked within an internal report.

While waiting for the arrival of the Task Force members and/or the external lawyer, reception staff should direct the authority members to a room where they can coordinate the raid. 

Note that representatives of the relevant authority do not have to wait for the presence of the external lawyer and other Task Force representatives. However, it is recommended that reception explain to the authority representatives that the Task Force members are on their way and, as far as is possible, make the authority representatives wait.

Task Force and Employee Responsibilities

Task Force members and the employees accompanying the authority representatives must adhere to the following principles:

• Task Force members must meet the authority representatives as quickly as possible;
• the Task Force leader must request a copy of the search warrant from the authority representatives to verify its legality, scope, and the conditions surrounding the raid (for example, the premises or types of media targeted by the search);
• only Task Force leaders provide information to the authority and sign documents;
• any persons subject to the investigation must ‘tolerate’ the raid and cannot refuse, hinder, or obstruct it (the obligation of tolerance). Refusing access is not recommended, except in exceptional cases, notably for example, if the identity of the authority representatives is doubtful or if they do not have a written search warrant;
• violation of the obligation of tolerance can lead to sanctions for obstructing an official action (art. 286 CP) or for threats and/or violence against agents (art. 285 CP);
• representatives of the relevant authority generally organise the raid themselves;
• cooperative behaviour by the Task Force facilitates the raid process for both parties;
• agents generally have access to all premises and vehicles of the company subject to the investigation, unless the search warrant specifies a restriction;
• Task Force members and accompanying company employees should avoid commenting on the investigation outside of formal hearings;
• hearings are coordinated with the company's legal department and the external lawyer.

Accompanying the Authorities and Handling Access

Company employees appointed in advance should accompany the authority in charge of the raid throughout its duration and maintain the internal report (see ch. II. B.1). They must open locked doors, and provide  passwords to access computers or safes.

During the raid, employees must not answer any questions and should systematically refer the authority to the Task Force leader and/or the external lawyer. Any hearing by the authority must be discussed and coordinated with the legal department and the external lawyer (see ch. III above).

If documents containing information subject to official secrecy protection or attorney-client privilege are involved, the Task Force leader must immediately inform the relevant authority’s leader and request sealing in accorance with the procedure described in ch. II. B.4 below.

Task Force members must remain available for the duration of the raid, be reachable by phone, and come to the search premises as quickly as possible when required. 

Seizure and Sealing of Documents Under Swiss Law

During the raid, any documents, recordings, or other items found that belong to the person targeted by the search may be seized and held until a decision is reached in the criminal proceedings. The relevant authority has the right to take away IT equipment such as computers, phones, storage media, or servers.

To prevent disruption to commercial activities, it may be necessary to explain that copies of certain documents must be made to allow the company to continue its operations.

Under certain conditions, the company targeted by the raid has the right to request that certain documents, recordings, or other items be sealed, to prevent the relevant authorities from accessing and using their content immediately. 

Before formally requesting sealing, it is advisable to negotiate with the agents in charge of the raid to determine if certain documents can be consensually excluded from seizure, notably due to the presence of a document covered by legal privilege or outside the scope of the search warrant. 

In case of refusal, sealing must be formally requested. If granted, judicial authorities will then seal the documents, recordings, or other items to prevent access, consultation, or use of these elements.

Sealing can be requested in the following cases:

• the interested party asserts their right to refuse to testify or another reason such as official secrecy or legal privilege (see art. 264 CPP);
• The search does not comply with general conditions, such as legality, sufficient suspicion, or adherence to the principle of proportionality.
• the potential probative value of the seized objects is lacking (for example, documents, recordings, or other objects from the private sphere of the interested party should not be used in criminal proceedings).

Regarding legal privilege, if information protected under a mandate between a lawyer and their client is voluntarily disclosed to a third party, the privilege is lost. However, the third party must maintain confidentiality if they have grounds under art 171 CPP to refuse to testify, or to oppose the seizure of the document under art. 264 CPP. If no such grounds exist, and the information was willingly and knowingly disclosed by the lawyer or their client, the third party cannot rely upon legal privilege to refuse to testify or to produce the information.³ 

Trade secrets, banking secrecy or "protection of business interests" are no longer valid grounds to request sealing.⁴

If there is a risk of trade secret espionage by persons involved in the investigation, it is possible to request that the relevant authority restrict access rights to the investigation files accordingly.

According to the rules in the CPP, when an application for sealing is made, the relevant authority must submit a request to the competent court requesting that any sealed information be unsealed within 20 days. Failing that, the objects and recordings must be returned to the company targeted by the raid.

The DPA does not specify the deadline within which the administrative authority must request unsealing. Jurisprudence has confirmed in this regard that the 20-day deadline provided for in the CPP is not analagous in administrative criminal procedure. Jurisprudence has, for example, considered that the unsealing request could occur one month, or even a month and a half after the raid.  On the other hand, it has been held that a 70-day delay violates the principle of speed if the authority remained inactive during this time. If in doubt, the company would be well advised to immediately request the sealing of documents or data covered by any secrecy protections, and at the latest within three days following the raid.  

The relevant authority must provide the company with an execution report which contains an inventory of the seized documents, recordings, or other items, with the description of the location where they were found. Any discrepancies that the company the subject of the raid find compared to their own findings or reports must be corrected immediately.

After the raid: debriefing, documentation, and next steps

A debriefing with the Task Force and accompanying company employees can be useful to optimise company policy and procedures and to prepare for future searches.

Documents related to the raid, such as the search warrant or the sequestration report, must be kept in its original format.

If during the debriefing it appears that the authority has seized data subject to secrecy protection (such as information protected by privilege), the company has a maximum and non-extendable deadline of three days to request sealing (the holder must request sealing according to art. 248 para. 1 CPP). This three-day deadline is not applicable to procedures governed by the DPA, which does not give a precise deadline. Thus, it is strongly recommended to request the sealing of documents during the search or directly after it.

The next steps should ideally be discussed as soon as possible with an external lawyer.

Conclusion: why dawn raid preparation matters

The key to navigating a dawn raid successfully lies in meticulous preparation and adherence to best practices, which include establishing a dedicated Task Force, training reception staff, and ensuring clear communication with the relevant authorities.

By implementing these strategies, a company can not only safeguard its interests but also ensure compliance with legal obligations during a raid. The importance of cooperation and maintaining a professional demeanour cannot be overstated, as these factors can greatly influence the outcome of the raid and subsequent proceedings.

Furthermore, understanding the nuances of the sealing process and the rights associated with it is crucial for protecting sensitive information. Companies must be prepared to act swiftly to request sealing when necessary and to challenge any procedural irregularities.

For further insight on the position in the UK, follow this link to an article written on this topic by our colleague in the London office, Rhys Novak and Emilie Brammer.

Expertise

With offices in many of the world’s major financial centres including London, Geneva and Zurich as well as Paris, Milan, Dubai, Hong Kong and Singapore, we are ideally placed to work with you to prepare for or assist with financial crime and dawn raids as they arise, whatever the law, language, rules, industry sector, or subject matter of that raid may be. 

Please contact Pierre Bydzovsky or Steven Fillettaz or your usual Charles Russell Speechlys LLP contact if you would like to get in touch.

^[1] Marc Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel, Das Teilnahmerecht bei Einvernahmen, in : RPS 143/2025 p. 49 ss, p. 55  

^[2] In Geneva, the Directive of the Attorney General (D.4, ch. 40.1) provides that there is no right to the presence of a lawyer during a search, which is problematic in view of the fundamental right to call upon a lawyer provided for in Art. 6 para. let. c ECHR.  

^[3] TF, arrêt 7B_691/2024, 7B_796/2024 du 7 février 2025, consid. 5.2.3

^[4]  TF, arrêts 7B_950/2024, 7B_976/2024 du 15 novembre 2024, consid. 2.4.1 et 2.4.2