On June 10, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) <a href="https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1403031/dl?inline">announced</a> changes to enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), marking the end of a four-month pause initiated by President Donald Trump. These developments have implications for Swiss companies engaged in international business, particularly those with ties to the U.S.
The DOJ has resumed FCPA enforcement but with a more targeted approach. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche stated that future investigations will prioritize eliminating cartels and transnational criminal organizations, advancing U.S. national security, and bribery schemes that significantly disadvantage U.S. companies, rather than smaller infractions.
In a footnote, the DOJ&#8217;s memo observes that the «most blatant bribery schemes have historically been committed by foreign companies» and that «the most significant FCPA enforcement actions—measured both by the scope of misconduct and the size of the monetary penalties imposed—have been overwhelmingly brought against foreign companies.»
For Swiss companies with operations or listings in the U.S., these changes may influence the risk landscape for international business dealings. The DOJ’s focus on cases affecting U.S. strategic interests could lead to increased scrutiny of transactions in sectors like energy and defense.
Continued enforcement by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which maintains authority to pursue civil enforcement actions under the FCPA’s accounting provisions, underscores the importance of maintaining robust internal controls and compliance programs to detect and prevent potential violations.

DOJ Announces New FCPA Guidelines

<h3>Background</h3>
In the event of suspected violations of the law or other irregularities, companies conduct internal investigations to determine and analyze the relevant facts. These internal investigations are often led by outside counsel. In parallel, criminal and regulatory authorities may conduct their own investigations into the same matters. To further their investigations, they may request documents and information prepared and collected in the course of the internal investigation, including investigation reports and supporting documents. In particular, financial institutions supervised by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA are subject to extensive disclosure and cooperation obligations. Consequently, findings of internal investigations are often voluntarily disclosed to FINMA. In turn, the prosecutors may try to obtain the findings of the internal investigation directly from the supervised financial institutions or, through administrative assistance, from FINMA.
In this context, the questions arise as to whether the findings of an internal investigation conducted by outside counsel and the collected supporting documents are protected by attorney-client privilege and whether privileged documents and information submitted to FINMA may be obtained by the prosecutors. In two recent cases, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court ruled on those issues (see <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a> and <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>).
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a>, the prosecutor requested FINMA to provide through mutual legal assistance the enforcement order of the proceedings against a Swiss bank as well as the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could obtain these documents from FINMA, even though the bank argued that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent were based on a privileged investigation report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel.
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the criminal justice authorities requested the bank in the same matter to provide the report of the internal investigation conducted by the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that the prosecutor could not obtain the report from the bank due to attorney-client privilege, although the bank had voluntarily submitted a copy of the report to FINMA.
The present Bulletin summarizes the key considerations of the Federal Supreme Court and their practical implications.
<h3>Key Considerations of the Federal Supreme Court on Attorney-Client Privilege</h3>
Authorities may forward information voluntarily disclosed to them, even if the information initially was subject to attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a>, the bank took the position that the enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA were protected by attorney-client privilege because these documents were based on the privileged internal investigation report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel.
The Federal Supreme Court rejected the bank&#8217;s arguments. According to the court, attorney-client communications are generally protected by attorney-client privilege. However, disclosures to third parties (e.g., an insurance company or government agency) are not considered attorney-client communications, even if the disclosure contains privileged information. Once privileged information is knowingly and voluntarily disclosed to third parties, the information leaves the attorney-client relationship. Therefore, the attorney-client privilege does not prevent third parties from fulfilling their obligation to testify or produce documents. According to the court, this also applies to voluntary disclosures to FINMA, even if the supervised financial institution expressly reserves its rights to claim attorney-client privilege protection.
The Federal Supreme Court concluded that privileged information in the possession of FINMA could be obtained by the prosecutor through mutual legal assistance. According to the court, this applies all the more to the FINMA enforcement order and the report of the investigation agent appointed by FINMA.
The question of whether the prosecutor could obtain the privileged report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel from FINMA was not part of the proceedings and was therefore not explicitly decided by the Federal Supreme Court. However, the court&#8217;s considerations make it sufficiently clear that this would likely be the case if the report was submitted to FINMA voluntarily. Thereby, the court confirmed that supervised financial institutions are not legally required to disclose to FINMA information protected by attorney-client privilege.
Investigation of the facts conducted by external counsel is protected by attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that reports of internal investigations led by Swiss outside counsel are protected by attorney-client privilege, in particular when the internal investigation is conducted in connection with the advice and representation in existing and impending legal proceedings. In this context, the court concluded that the investigation and analysis of the relevant facts are part of the core area of outside counsels&#8250; work and are therefore privileged.
As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that the report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel was protected by attorney-client privilege. The exception established by the Federal Supreme Court in earlier decisions that reports by law firms are not subject to attorney-client privilege if they were prepared in connection with documentary obligations pursuant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act, did not apply in the present case.
Selection and analysis of pre-existing documents is protected by attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court also confirmed that while internal bank documents as such are not protected by attorney-client privilege, the selection and evaluation of those documents by Swiss outside counsel constitute legal advice and are therefore protected work product. Consequently, the copies of pre-existing documents such as bank internal documents attached to an investigation report from Swiss outside counsel are privileged.
As a result, the Federal Supreme Court ruled that not only the report of the bank&#8217;s Swiss outside counsel but also all documents enclosed to the report were protected by attorney-client privilege.
Voluntary disclosure to FINMA does not lead to general loss of attorney-client privilege
In case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_158-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_158/2023</a>, the Federal Supreme Court confirmed that the voluntary disclosure of privileged information to selected third parties does not constitute a general waiver of attorney-client privilege. Consequently, privileged documents and information voluntarily submitted to FINMA by a supervised financial institution do not lose their confidential character and therefore remain protected by attorney-client privilege. Hence, prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance – as this was decided in case <a href="https://www.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?highlight_docid=aza://06-08-2024-7B_874-2023&amp;lang=de&amp;zoom=&amp;type=show_document" target="_blank" rel="noopener">7B_874/2023</a> – but may not seize the same privileged information directly from the supervised financial institution.
<h3>Conclusion and Practical Implications</h3>
The Federal Supreme Court has reinforced the protection of attorney-client privilege in the context of internal investigations. However, the court&#8217;s position that prosecutors may obtain privileged information from FINMA through mutual legal assistance leads to a disproportionate restriction of the application of attorney-client privilege in connection with mutual legal assistance proceedings between Swiss authorities. The decision is part of a series of Federal Supreme Court decisions that undermine the protection of attorney-client privilege in favor of an efficient and unimpeded cooperation between Swiss criminal and regulatory authorities.
This new case law applies not only to the disclosure of documents to FINMA, as in the case before the Federal Supreme Court, but also to disclosures of privileged information to any other authority (e.g., the Competition Commission or tax authorities) or third party. Financial institutions, as well as other companies, must therefore consider this case law whenever they intend to disclose documents and information voluntarily to authorities and other third parties. Anyone who knowingly and voluntarily discloses privileged documents and information to a third party now risks losing the protection of attorney-client privilege for disclosed documents and information in the possession of the third party.
To preserve the protection of the attorney-client privilege when cooperating with authorities, companies have the following options: (1) consider disclosure of privileged documents and information only if compelled; (2) when possible communicate privileged information orally rather than in writing; or (3) give regulators or other competent authorities access to privileged information on a review-only basis. None of these options is truly satisfactory, and they may be difficult to implement in practice. As a result, this new case law may have the effect of significantly limiting or at least complicating cooperation between companies and authorities as companies will now have to carefully decide on a case-by-case basis whether to disclose privileged information to regulators or other competent authorities.

Web_Preview_AI_Anwaltsgeheimnis_270824

Swiss Court Limits and Reinforces Attorney-Client Privilege

Homburger Bulletin

Swiss Federal Council publishes Report on Banking Stability

Prozesse

Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit

Finanzmarktrecht

Kapitalmarkt

Wettbewerb

Gesellschaftsrecht / M&A

IP / IT

Healthcare / Life Sciences

Steuern

Wirtschaftsstrafrecht

Finanzierungen

Anlageprodukte

Chambers-web-640x140

Homburger News

20250320_Chambers Europe Top Ranked

Homburger in mehreren Kategorien als Top-Tier-Kanzlei im Chambers Europe Guide 2025 ausgezeichnet

Homburger wurde von Chambers and Partners in deren Europe Guide 2025 in den folgenden Kategorien im Band 1 platziert: Arbitration, Banking &amp; Finance, Capital Markets, Competition / Antitrust, Corporate / M&amp;A, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences, Litigation, Tax und White-Collar Crime.
Die Organisation Chambers and Partners bewertet in ihrem Europe Guide die besten Anwältinnen und Anwälte und die besten Kanzleien in Europa. Die Rankings entstehen gestützt auf einen Research-Prozess, der von einem Team erfahrener Researcher im Jahresrhythmus durchgeführt wird.

Untersuchungen

GIR100

Homburger wurde zum zehnten Mal in Folge von GIR 100 als eine der weltweit führenden Anwaltskanzleien für interne Untersuchungen ausgezeichnet.
Der <a href="https://globalinvestigationsreview.com/survey/gir-100/2024/organization-profile/homburger" target="_blank" rel="noopener">GIR 100 Guide</a> würdigt Kanzleien, die fähig sind, komplexe regulatorische und interne Untersuchungen in einem grenzüberschreitenden Kontext durchzuführen. Der Guide wird jährlich auf der Basis eines fundierten Research-Prozess zusammengestellt und von dem unabhängigen juristischen Verlag, Law Business Research, herausgegeben.
Homburgers White Collar &amp; Investigations Team wird von <a href="https://www.homburger.ch/de/team/claudio-bazzani" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Claudio Bazzani</a> geleitet. Das Team führt interne und aufsichtsrechtliche Untersuchungen vor allem in grenzüberschreitenden Fällen durch, berät Unternehmen in allen Aspekten der Compliance und vertritt Firmen und Führungskräfte in wirtschaftsstrafrechtlichen Fällen und regulatorischen Verfahren vor in- und ausländischen Behörden.

Homburger in Global Investigations Review GIR 100 2024 ausgezeichnet

Webnews_Chambers_Europe_Top Ranked_2024

Chambers and Homburger

Homburger wurde von Chambers and Partners in ihrem Europe Guide 2024 mehrfach im Band 1 platziert: Arbitration, Banking &amp; Finance, Capital Markets, Competition / Antitrust, Corporate / M&amp;A, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences, Litigation, Tax und White-Collar Crime.
Chambers and Partners bewertet in ihrem Europe Guide die besten Anwältinnen und Anwälte sowie Kanzleien in ganz Europa. Die Rankings entstehen durch Recherchen ihres erfahrenen Teams an Researchern.

Homburger in mehreren Kategorien als Top-Tier-Kanzlei im Chambers Europe Guide 2024 ausgezeichnet

Wirtschaftsstrafrecht

Hauptkontakte

DOJ Announces New FCPA Guidelines

Swiss Court Limits and Reinforces Attorney-Client Privilege

Swiss Federal Council publishes Report on Banking Stability

Homburger in mehreren Kategorien als Top-Tier-Kanzlei im Chambers Europe Guide 2025 ausgezeichnet

Homburger in Global Investigations Review GIR 100 2024 ausgezeichnet

Homburger in mehreren Kategorien als Top-Tier-Kanzlei im Chambers Europe Guide 2024 ausgezeichnet

Sanctions 2026: Switzerland

Datenübermittlung ins Ausland: So geht es ohne Komplikationen

Sanctions 2025: Switzerland