Facts
[B.] and O. are accused of committing 17 thefts and one attempted theft. The first prosecution act was carried out on July 25, 1996 by the City Police of Bern. In total, 14 of the thefts occurred in the canton of Zurich and 3 in the canton of Bern.
The Attorney General of the Canton of Bern requested that the criminal prosecution authorities of the Canton of Zurich be declared competent and obliged to prosecute and adjudicate the criminal acts attributed to [B.] and O. However, the Public Prosecutor's Office of the Canton of Zurich requested that the Canton of Bern be declared competent and obliged to prosecute and adjudicate the offenses.
Considerations
The Indictment Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court states that, in accordance with Art. 350 para. 2 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB), the authorities of the place where the investigation was first initiated, i.e., the authorities of the Canton of Bern, are generally competent. However, Art. 263 of the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure (BStP) provides that the Indictment Chamber of the Federal Supreme Court can determine the jurisdiction differently than in Art. 350 StGB in the case of a concurrence of multiple criminal acts.
For a deviation from the statutory place of jurisdiction, the Indictment Chamber requires compelling reasons. This may be the case if there is an obvious focus of criminal activity in one canton. If more than two-thirds of a larger number of comparable offenses are attributable to a single canton, it can generally be assumed that there is a focus in that canton.
In the present case, around 82% of the thefts are attributable to the Canton of Zurich. However, the…