Provisional Assignment of a Seized Vehicle to the Respondent

Facts

The Cantonal Prosecutor's Office of Aargau conducted criminal proceedings against [A.] . It ordered the seizure of an Audi RS6 vehicle, as there was a suspicion that the vehicle originated from the defendant's criminal acts. As this suspicion could not be substantiated, the Prosecutor's Office lifted the seizure and initially assigned the vehicle to the complainant [X. SA] . However, [Y. AG] in liquidation, represented by the Bankruptcy Office of Aargau, filed a complaint against this decision. The High Court of the Canton of Aargau granted the complaint, revoked the assignment to the complainant, and instead assigned the Audi RS6 to [Y. AG] in liquidation. The complainant [X. SA] filed a criminal complaint against this decision with the Federal Supreme Court.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. It stated that the procedure under Art. 267 para. 5 CrimPC does not result in a final assignment of the seized item, but only a provisional distribution of the party roles for a subsequent civil procedure. A "prima facie assessment" of the civil law relationships must be carried out, without the need to conduct an extensive evidentiary procedure or to exhaustively clarify the civil law relationships.

In the present case, the lower court was able to classify the…