Facts

Parties:

  • Appellant: [X.] S.A., represented by Attorney Dr. Bernhard Isenring
  • Respondent: Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich

Facts:

  • [X.] S.A. filed a criminal complaint against [A.] , [B.] , and [C.] for fraud in connection with a purchase transaction involving the isotope SE-74.
  • The Public Prosecutor's Office III of the Canton of Zurich did not initiate the criminal investigation.
  • The Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich dismissed an appeal against this non-initiation decision.
  • [X.] S.A. filed an appeal in criminal matters with the Federal Supreme Court.

Main Issue:

  • Whether the non-initiation of the criminal investigation by the Zurich Public Prosecutor's Office was lawful.

Considerations

The appellant alleges a violation of Art. 3 and 8 SCC as well as Art. 310 CrimPC. She argues that the location of the asset disposition in Geneva and the transfer of the purchase price from Zurich could serve as connecting factors for Swiss criminal jurisdiction. The lower court should thus have opened the proceedings and transferred them to Geneva.

The Public Prosecutor's Office and the lower court argue that the deception acts were carried out in Moscow and that the place of the offense's result does not lie in Switzerland. The transfer of the purchase price from a Swiss bank is incidental and does not constitute a…