Facts
This judgment addressed the question of whether the cantonal criminal prosecution authority to which a federal criminal case has been delegated is also competent to prosecute and adjudicate subsequently discovered similar offenses belonging to the delegated set of acts, which the accused committed outside the time period specified in the delegation order but before its issuance.
The case concerned criminal proceedings against D. and 22 other co-participants, including the appellant, for violations of the Federal Act on Gambling Establishments. The Federal Prosecutor's Office had delegated the criminal case to the Statthalteramt (administrative office) of the Canton of Zurich pursuant to Articles 18 and 107 of the Federal Act on the Administration of Federal Criminal Justice (BStP).
The delegation order specified the "places and times of commission" for June to December 1984 and November 1984. The appellant claimed that for offenses he allegedly committed from December 1984 to July 1985, there was no valid delegation.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court decided that the cantonal authority to which a federal criminal case has been delegated is not bound by the previous investigative results and the times and places of the offenses specified in the delegation order. The delegation covers the criminal case "as a whole" and in its "full scope".
Therefore, the cantonal authority…