Facts
Parties involved: The complainant (a real estate portfolio manager) against the Swiss Federal Prosecutor's Office and the SUVA.
Courts: Federal Supreme Court, Criminal Division.
Date: August 21, 2009.
Main facts: The complainant, a real estate portfolio manager for the SUVA, was accused of accepting an advantage (Art. 322sexies SCC) and passive corruption (Art. 322quater SCC). He received undue advantages (a sum of money and a Rolex watch) in connection with the sale of a property. The complainant argued that he was not a public official under Art. 110 para. 3 SCC and that the advantages were rewards and not future incentives.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court examined the notion of a public official under Art. 110 para. 3 SCC. It concluded that the criminal notion of a public official includes not only officials in the organic sense but also those who perform public functions. The SUVA, as a federal public law institution, performs public tasks, and therefore, its employees, including the complainant as a real estate portfolio manager, are considered public officials in a criminal sense.
Regarding the acceptance of an advantage (Art. 322sexies SCC), the Court emphasized that the advantage must be related to the official function and must be likely to influence the future behavior of the official. Simple rewards do not fall under this provision. The Court noted that the advantages received by the complainant…