Facts
The Federal Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the Federal Criminal Court against [A.] for the unauthorized acceptance of public deposits pursuant to Art. 46 para. 1 lit. a of the Banking Act (BankG). [A.] was the president of the [B.] -Group, which did not have a license as a bank, securities dealer, or for the distribution of collective investment schemes. Nevertheless, [B. AG] accepted a total of around 2.9 million Swiss francs from at least 43 private investors between 2008 and 2014 and issued so-called "mandatory convertible bonds" in return. The Federal Supreme Court concluded that these were not bond debentures within the meaning of the exception in Art. 1 para. 2 sentence 3 BankG, as the requirements of Art. 3a para. 3 lit. b of the then applicable Banking Ordinance (aBankV) were not met. In particular, the prospectus information required under Art. 1156 of the Code of Obligations (OR) was missing. Thus, the conduct of the appellant fulfilled the objective elements of Art. 46 para. 1 lit. a BankG.Considerations
In subjective terms, the Federal Supreme Court considered conditional intent to be given. As a financial market specialist, the appellant must have known that he was operating in the regulated…