Swiss banking secrecy is no longer fit for purpose: Article 47 of the 1934 Banking Act

Article 47 can punish onward disclosure of confidential bank-client data and contains no specific public-interest defence. What tax-data exchange, the ownership register and proposed FINMA fines leave open.

Charles Pycraft · November 2026 · London

Cover card: Swiss banking secrecy is no longer fit for purpose. Navy ground with a gold padlock and document motif marked Art. 47 and a small CP mark; title rendered by the site. An investigation by Charles Pycraft

This article is part of Offshore: the enabler chain. It sits in pillar 2: Why the watchdogs miss it. Start with the series overview if you are new to the work.

Updated on 13 November 2026.

Switzerland now exchanges financial account data automatically for tax purposes, has a beneficial-ownership register and has revised its Anti-Money Laundering Act. Article 47 of the Federal Act on Banks and Savings Banks of 8 November 1934 (SR 952.0) still criminalises unauthorised disclosure by people bound by banking secrecy. Since 1 July 2015 it has also covered onward disclosure or use of a secret disclosed in breach of that duty. Article 47 contains no specific public-interest defence for journalism or research. General grounds of justification can apply in individual cases. Several of the tools that would let outsiders see a problem early are still closed, slow or missing. This piece sets out what changed, what did not, and the concrete steps the Federal Assembly could take.

What Article 47 says today

Article 47 paragraph 1 of the Banking Act provides for up to three years' imprisonment or a monetary penalty for anyone who intentionally:

Under paragraph 1bis, the maximum prison term rises to five years if conduct under letter (a) or (c) secures a financial advantage for the person responsible or someone else. A monetary penalty is also available. Paragraph 2 provides for a fine of up to CHF 250,000 for negligent conduct. Paragraph 5 preserves federal and cantonal duties to testify or provide information to an authority.

Letter (c) and paragraph 1bis came from parliamentary initiative 10.450, "Punish the sale of bank client data severely". Parliament adopted the amendment on 12 December 2014 and it entered into force on 1 July 2015. The initiative targeted the sale of bank-client data. Letter (c) also reaches qualifying disclosures where no sale takes place.

Sources: Banking Act, SR 952.0, Fedlex; AS 2015 1535, extension of criminal liability for breach of professional secrecy; committee report on parliamentary initiative 10.450, BBl 2014 6231.

Where the law bites: reporting

In February 2022 a consortium of news organisations published "Suisse Secrets", reporting based on leaked Credit Suisse client data. Reuters reported that the Swiss group Tamedia stayed out of the project because of the legal risk created by the 2015 change. (The site's earlier piece, Suisse Secrets: when the ledger left the vault, covers the reporting itself.)

Parliament considered two proposals. The motion on press freedom failed, and the Council of States commissioned a report on the wider use of illegally obtained data.

The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression wrote to the Swiss government about Article 47 in March 2022 (communication OL CHE 1/2022), raising concern that the Banking Act has no exception for journalists or whistleblowers. She visited Bern in November 2022, and a further exchange with the Swiss authorities followed in April 2023.

Sources: Curia Vista 22.4272; WAK-S report of 17 October 2023; Council of States vote, 14 December 2023; Curia Vista 23.4322, official text of the postulate; Council of States vote on 23.4322; Federal Council report on motions and postulates 2025; Edito, 21 September 2026; UN Special Rapporteur communication OL CHE 1/2022; Special Rapporteur's note on Switzerland; Reuters, 6 May 2022.

Where the law bites: the people inside

Switzerland has no general statute protecting private-sector whistleblowers. The National Council rejected bill 13.094 on 5 March 2020 by 147 votes to 42. It rejected a further proposal for private-sector protections in February 2024. Under Swiss case law, the usual sequence is to report internally, then to a competent authority, and to go public only exceptionally. Bank employees also have to consider Article 47, including the circumstances in which disclosure to an authority is permitted or required.

Sources: Curia Vista 13.094; swissinfo, March 2020.

What has changed, and its limits

Tax: automatic exchange of information. The legal basis for the AEOI has been in force since 1 January 2017. On 15 October 2026 the Federal Tax Administration reported that in 2026 it exchanged information with 113 states, sending data on about 4 million financial accounts and receiving data on about 4 million. Exchange was reciprocal with 86 states. Of the other 27, 14 did not yet meet confidentiality and data-security requirements and 13 chose not to receive data. There was no exchange with Russia. The Tax Administration says it cannot give any figure for the value of the assets concerned. The AEOI is a channel for tax authorities. It gives private parties and journalists no direct access to account data. Any use for non-tax purposes depends on the applicable agreement and its safeguards.

Sources: Federal Tax Administration, 15 October 2026; SIF, AEOI partner states.

Ownership: the transparency register. Parliament adopted the Federal Act on the Transparency of Legal Persons and the Identification of Beneficial Owners (TJPG, parliamentary item 24.046) on 26 September 2025, together with a revised Anti-Money Laundering Act. The Federal Council brought both into force on 1 October 2026, apart from provisions on cantonal state notaries. The register is run by the Federal Office of Justice, with a checking unit at the Federal Department of Finance. Existing Swiss entities subject to filing generally have three to six months from 1 October 2026, depending on their legal form and audit status. The outer deadline is two years if every beneficial owner is already entered in the commercial register as a shareholder, member or member of a governing body. For Swiss entities, the first commercial-register change after entry into force triggers a one-month filing period from publication of the change, subject to any earlier deadline. Existing foreign legal persons required to file generally have six months.

Article 2 lists the Swiss company forms covered, including AGs, GmbHs and cooperatives, and brings certain foreign legal persons with a Swiss connection within scope. Swiss foundations and associations fall outside the filing requirement. Trusts are not entered in their own right. Under Articles 2 paragraph 2, 15 and 16, trustees based in Switzerland or administering trusts there must identify and document the trusts' beneficial owners, except where the trustees are already subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

The register is closed to the public. The Act provides access for the checking unit and specified authorities, and for covered financial intermediaries and advisers when needed for their anti-money laundering due diligence. Registered entities can request extracts of their own entries. The register operator says online searches are not yet available.

Sources: TJPG, BBl 2025 2900; TJPG as in force, SR 955.3; Federal Council, 12 June 2026; SIF, Anti-Money Laundering.

Advisers. The revised Anti-Money Laundering Act covers advisers who professionally assist third parties with financial transactions, including raising funds, in connection with specified dealings. These include buying or selling real estate, setting up non-operating Swiss entities or entities abroad, running or administering non-operating entities, handling their contributions or distributions, and buying or selling an entity where a non-operating entity is the buyer or seller. A separate provision covers professional provision of an address or premises as an entity's domicile or registered office for more than six months.

The exemptions include transfers of real estate or entities worth less than CHF 5 million where the full purchase price is paid and received through banks or other financial intermediaries subject to the Act. They also include certain dealings involving family, matrimonial or inheritance law or gifts. Lawyers and notaries are exempt for work connected with judicial, criminal, administrative or arbitration proceedings. Reuters reported that lawmakers sought narrower rules on competitiveness grounds. The FATF calendar lists a possible Swiss on-site assessment in mid-2027 and a possible plenary discussion in February 2028.

Sources: Anti-Money Laundering Act amendment of 26 September 2025, AS 2026 322; FATF Global Assessment Calendar; swissinfo, September 2025; Reuters, 11 September 2025; Parliament news, 17 September 2025.

The supervisor. FINMA has no power to impose supervisory fines on institutions. The Federal Council's consultation, which closes on 19 November 2026, proposes administrative fines for serious breaches of supervisory law. The proposed ceiling is 10 per cent of average annual gross operating revenue over the preceding three financial years. The draft also makes publication of final enforcement decisions the general rule, with exceptions where overriding public or private interests weigh against disclosure. The proposals remain subject to consultation and legislation. See FINMA is no longer fit for purpose for the wider toolkit.

Sources: SIF, consultation on Banking Act and Liquidity Ordinance; list of measures, EFD.

Cross-border help. Foreign prosecutors can seek Swiss bank records through criminal mutual legal assistance. In its incoming criminal evidence-request category, the Federal Office of Justice's 2024 annual report lists 1,324 requests. Its later statistical table gives 1,323 for 2024 and 1,333 for 2025. The same table lists 25 incoming asset-recovery requests in 2025, compared with 10 in 2024 and 30 in 2020, with the office's own cases shown separately. The Swiss Federal Audit Office has found that the statistical information on cantonal mutual-assistance work was incomplete, and that not all cantons were yet reporting the data the office had requested.

A person directly and personally affected who has a legitimate interest in challenging a final ruling can appeal to the Federal Criminal Court. For bank records, that is normally the account holder. An appeal against a final ruling authorising transfer suspends the transfer. The FOJ tables cited here give counts without processing times.

Sources: Federal Office of Justice, Annual Activity Report 2024: Mutual Legal Assistance; Federal Office of Justice, International Mutual Assistance statistics 2025; Swiss Federal Audit Office, follow-up audit of international mutual assistance.

Why this reading says "no longer fit for purpose"

Client confidentiality serves a legitimate interest. The concern here is that tax authorities receive account data through routine exchanges, and supervisors and prosecutors have formal channels to obtain information, while access for outsiders is more limited. A journalist who publishes protected client information may face liability under Article 47. A bank employee who reports concerns may have to weigh employment and secrecy duties. A victim or office-holder has no general right to search the transparency register.

In my view, clearer protections for public-interest reporting would make it easier for journalists and employees to bring credible concerns to light before harm spreads.

What the Federal Assembly can do

The winter session runs from 30 November to 18 December 2026 and the spring session from 1 to 19 March 2027.

  1. A public-interest defence in Article 47. Amend Article 47 paragraph 1 letter (c) to protect good-faith journalistic or research publication where the public interest justifies disclosure. WAK-N or WAK-S could put forward a committee motion instructing the Federal Council to draft an amendment, or pursue a parliamentary initiative to draft one in Parliament. Motion 22.4272 sought protection for good-faith press work. The proposal here would also cover research publication.
  2. Protect public-interest publication. When the Federal Council reports on postulate 23.4322, WAK-S should oppose any new offence that would criminalise justified public-interest publication. Any bill creating such an offence would require approval by both chambers.
  3. A private-sector whistleblower statute. The Legal Affairs Committees and the Federal Department of Justice and Police should bring forward a bill protecting employees against retaliation and allowing direct reports to FINMA or a competent prosecutor in defined circumstances. The bill should specify when those disclosures are lawful despite employment and secrecy duties. If Parliament also wants employees to report directly to MROS in their own capacity, it should expressly extend MROS's statutory reporting remit.
  4. Legitimate-interest access to the transparency register. The Legal Affairs Committees should propose amending the TJPG to give journalists and researchers access on application where they show a legitimate interest, and to give victims and office-holders access where a relevant court decision supports their request. The amendment should set limits on the data released and its use. The Federal Office of Justice and Federal Department of Finance should publish annual totals for filings, discrepancies identified and sanctions imposed.
  5. Fines for institutions. The Federal Council should retain the proposed FINMA fine power and the presumption of publication of final enforcement decisions in the bill it submits to Parliament after consultation. The Economic Affairs and Taxation Committees should scrutinise both measures.
  6. Time limits and statistics for legal assistance. The Federal Office of Justice should publish average and longest processing times for incoming requests, broken down by offence type where the data permit. The Legal Affairs Committees should propose adding target decision times for appeals over bank records in economic-crime cases to the existing duty of prompt handling under Article 17a of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters.
  7. Test the adviser rules before the FATF review. A Legal Affairs Committee should submit a postulate asking the Federal Council for an initial report ahead of the FATF's possible mid-2027 visit. The State Secretariat for International Finance and FINMA should report how many newly covered advisers have applied to or joined a self-regulatory organisation, how many already supervised firms have notified their supervisor of advisory activity, and what data are available on covered mandates to set up entities.

A note on records

A dated file receipt can record a digital fingerprint for comparison with a later copy. The receipt does not establish that a report was sent or received, that its contents are accurate, or when the file was created. Partisan offers this service. I work on business development and communications for Partisan.

About this piece

Public sources only, as linked. It makes no allegations about any person, bank or firm, and it does not concern any private dispute. Holding money in Switzerland is not itself unlawful. Opinion is marked as argued reading.

Previous: FINMA is no longer fit for purpose

Series overview: Offshore: the enabler chain

Sources