Affidavits in International Litigation - Lessons for Trust Companies from a Recent Geneva Judgment

A recent judgment issued on 27 April 2026 by the Criminal Appeals Chamber of the Geneva Court of Justice is of direct interest to trust companies involved in cross-border disputes. Beyond the criminal-law issue, the decision offers a practical reminder on document governance, affidavit management and procedural strategy.

Facts in Brief

A Geneva-based trust administration company (A SA) was in dispute with a former client before the courts of Jersey and the British Virgin Islands (BVI). A former director of A SA, who had initially authored an affidavit favourable to the company, later produced three further affidavits in favour of the opposing party, explaining that the initial text, whose content was inaccurate, had been provided to him pre-drafted and that he had signed it without reading it. A SA filed a criminal complaint in Geneva for false testimony and defamation, or alternatively calumny. The Public Prosecutor declined to proceed with the complaint, a decision confirmed, by substitution of grounds, by the Court in this judgment.

Key Legal Takeaways

The Court recalled that Article 307 of the Swiss Criminal Code (“SCC”), which criminalises false testimony, protects the administration of Swiss justice, whether conducted before national courts or abroad where courts are seized of a request for mutual assistance from Switzerland. A private party may, admittedly, rely secondarily on the status of injured party, but only if it has been affected by the alleged false testimony. In this case, the affidavits at issue were intended for foreign courts and it was not shown that they had influenced the outcome of the proceedings, still less to A SA’s detriment. As a result, A SA was denied standing to appeal in relation to this alleged offence.

As for the offences against honour concerning one affidavit (Articles 173-174 SCC), the Court denied the existence of a forum in Switzerland, recalling that this requires either that the author acted in Switzerland or that the result occurred in Switzerland. In cases involving statements injurious to honour, this will be the case if the statement was received in Switzerland by one or more third parties to whom it was made or simply made accessible. In this case, the affidavit in question was prepared not in Switzerland but in the United Kingdom and was brought to the attention of a foreign authority, namely a court of the British Virgin Islands (BVI).

Practical Implications for Trust Companies

• Secure the affidavit preparation process. The allegation that an affidavit was “pre-drafted” and signed without being read is a major vulnerability. Each statement should be subject to a formalised process: adversarial review, express dated approval by the signatory, and retention of successive versions and exchanges.
• Manage risks relating to former directors and officers. A director’s departure does not end their influence on ongoing disputes. Trust companies should anticipate the possibility that a former officer may change position and should rigorously document the facts in real time, independently of any subsequent statement.
• Do not overestimate the Swiss criminal-law route. Where the disputed statements are produced and read abroad, Swiss criminal law will not provide an effective remedy. Article 307 SCC does not protect private interests before foreign courts, and offences against honour require a Swiss forum — meaning that the injurious content must have been brought to the attention of a third party in Switzerland.
• Analyse forum and strategy in advance. Before filing a complaint in Switzerland, it is important to verify that the conditions for jurisdiction are met and to assess whether proceedings before the courts of the place of the offence would be more appropriate.

Conclusion

This judgment is a reminder that document prevention, rigorous governance of witness statements and cross-border coordination of litigation strategy are far more effective than a late criminal complaint where the centre of gravity of the dispute lies abroad. For trust companies, the issue is not only legal: it is reputational. A former officer who retracts or reverses prior statements may cause lasting harm to the company’s commercial credibility, without Swiss criminal law offering a remedy. It is better to invest in robust internal processes than to discover, at the appeal stage, that there is no forum or standing to act.

Reference: ACPR/415/2026, Criminal Appeals Chamber, Geneva Court of Justice, 27 April 2026, case P/17909/2024.