Facts
The Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich conducted a criminal investigation against [F.] for offenses against property and documents. In this context, it had several bank accounts of [A.] , the wife of [F.] , as well as a number of bank accounts held by or with signing authority of [F.] , frozen. It also ordered land registry freezes on properties owned by [A.] . By order dated September 1, 2021, the Public Prosecutor's Office lifted the aforementioned bank account and land registry freezes, making the final release of the assets dependent on the entry into force of its order. [B.] , [C.A.] , [D.A.] and [E.A.] as allegedly injured parties filed appeals against this with the High Court of the Canton of Zurich. During the pendency of these two appeal proceedings, the Public Prosecutor's Office filed charges against [F.] with the District Court of Zurich. Thereupon, the High Court dismissed the two appeal proceedings as moot by decisions of January 6, 2023. [A.] , the wife of [F.] , is now filing a criminal appeal against these decisions of the High Court.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court sets aside the contested decisions of the High Court and remands the matter for a new assessment to the lower instance. It justifies this as follows:Although with the filing of the indictment, the procedural authority passes to the court of first instance, the High Court should not have dismissed the appeal proceedings against the release of the seized assets ordered by the Public Prosecutor's Office as moot. The appellant has a legitimate interest in a prompt decision on the legality of the release, as the seizure represents a serious interference with her property rights. Furthermore, considerations of procedural economy…