Facts
On March 6, 1998, the Federal Office of Police transmitted to the Geneva investigating judge a request for judicial assistance presented by the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Ukraine for acts of embezzlement and money laundering. In the context of this proceeding, the Geneva investigating judge opened a criminal investigation and ordered the seizure of bank accounts.
On March 27, 1998, the investigating judge met with the Ukrainian investigating judge Dimitro Mykolaiovitch Moltchanov and spontaneously transmitted to him information on the existence of several other bank accounts that could be linked to the case, even though they had not been mentioned in the initial request for assistance.
The persons concerned by this spontaneous transmission of information, [Z.] and [B.], filed an appeal against this communication, which the Indictment Chamber of the Canton of Geneva declared inadmissible. The Federal Tribunal dismissed the administrative appeal filed by [Z.] and [B.] against this decision.
Considerations
The Federal Tribunal considers that the spontaneous transmission of information and evidence in application of Article 67a of the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC) constitutes a form of judicial assistance, even though it does not result from a foreign request.
Although the law does not expressly provide for a right of appeal against this spontaneous transmission, the Federal Tribunal considers that the persons concerned can challenge it in the context of an appeal against the decision to close the mutual assistance proceedings, provided that they have a legitimate interest worthy of protection.
However, the law requires that any spontaneous transmission of information be…