When can advising a client with suspected proceeds of corruption become a criminal offense? And where is the line between legal or financial advice and an act intended to conceal illicit assets?
The Swiss investigative media outlet REFLEKT examined these issues in its undercover investigation “The Door Opener to Corruption.” An actor posed as an intermediary for an East African government official when speaking with Swiss lawyers, trustees, and asset managers. The official wanted to bring approximately USD 80 million into Switzerland from the awarding of mining licenses. In the conversations, the payments were explicitly referred to as “facilitating money” or bribes.
Dr. Stefan Mbiyavanga, an attorney at LENLAW in Bern, was among the external experts to whom REFLEKT presented selected findings and advisory scenarios for criminal law analysis.
What the Undercover Investigation Revealed
REFLEKT contacted a total of 30 people. Nineteen agreed to be interviewed: ten attorneys, six asset managers, and three trustees.
According to REFLEKT, 13 interviewees explained specific ways in which they could assist the alleged public official. Eleven outlined measures that could make it more difficult to trace the assets or determine their origin.
REFLEKT itself points out that this sample size does not allow for representative conclusions about the Swiss consulting industry. However, the research highlights specific scenarios in which the question of the criminal law limits of professional consulting arises.
When does providing advice become a criminal offense?
Not every problematic consultation automatically constitutes money laundering.
According to Stefan Mbiyavanga, the experimental design of the investigation did not, in particular, allow for a definitive conclusion as to whether a business relationship would actually have been established. However, the length of the numerous discussions could suggest that there was, at any rate, serious interest in retaining legal counsel.
Advisory services become particularly sensitive from a criminal law perspective when they are intended to conceal the origin of illicit assets or the beneficial ownership thereof.
This is particularly true when non-genuine economic transactions are used as a pretext or misleading information is provided to banks in order to conceal the actual origin or allocation of assets.
Anti-money laundering regulations require effective oversight
Beyond this specific case, the investigation raises a fundamental question: How effective are statutory money laundering regulations if high-risk structures are developed outside or on the fringes of effective oversight?
Stefan Mbiyavanga summarized this point to REFLEKT as follows:
“Where oversight is lacking, even the best regulations fail to reach their full potential.”
The challenge from a criminal law and regulatory perspective therefore lies not only in creating new obligations. It is equally crucial to identify suspicious circumstances and effectively enforce existing criminal and regulatory rules.
The investigation thus touches on a key intersection between criminal law on corruption, money laundering, and the activities of professional intermediaries.
About the Research
REFLEKT published “Door Openers to Corruption” on April 8, 2025.