Facts

Parties: Appellant [Z.] against Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority FINMA.

Facts:

  • The FINMA prohibited the [X. AG] , [Y. AG] , and [B.A.] from accepting public deposits and advertising them with a superprovisional decision dated March 1, 2013.
  • An investigator found that the [X. AG] accepted funds from at least 20 customers totaling approximately CHF 500,000 and invested them in real estate shares CO real estate bonds.
  • [Z.] was the chairman of the board of both AGs and signed relevant documents, although he claimed to have no knowledge of the transactions.
  • The FINMA found that the AGs accepted public deposits commercially without authorization and imposed practice and advertising bans as well as publication of these sanctions.
  • The Federal Administrative Court dismissed the appeal of [Z.] , who then turned to the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examines the appeal in public law matters and finds that the appellant, as personally affected by the measures, is entitled to appeal. It bases the facts on the previous instance and examines the correct application of federal law.

The acceptance of public deposits without authorization is prohibited under Art. 1 para. 2 BankA. The FINMA can impose practice and advertising bans in the event of serious breaches of supervisory law provisions and publish them (Art. 33 and 34 FINMASA).

The appellant does not dispute the unauthorized acceptance of public deposits but claims to have had no knowledge of it. The Federal Supreme…