Facts
The Cantonal Court of Graubünden acquitted A., B., C., and D. of the charge of multiple counts of promoting prostitution within the meaning of Art. 195 para. 3 SCC in conjunction with Art. 200 SCC. A. and D. were also acquitted of the charge of promoting prostitution within the meaning of Art. 195 para. 2 SCC in conjunction with Art. 200 SCC.
The Public Prosecutor's Office of Graubünden filed a federal nullity appeal against this judgment and requested that the judgment be set aside insofar as the defendants were acquitted of the charge of multiple counts of promoting prostitution within the meaning of Art. 195 para. 3 SCC in conjunction with Art. 200 SCC, and that the matter be remanded to the lower court for a new decision.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court's Court of Cassation concluded that the acquittal of the defendants from the charge of promoting prostitution within the meaning of Art. 195 para. 3 SCC did not violate federal law. The actual circumstances in the sauna club L. differed significantly from the cases previously assessed by the Federal Supreme Court, in which supervision within the meaning of the law was present.
In the present case, the women's freedom of movement was not restricted, they did not have to generate a specific daily turnover, and they could stay in the club for an extended period without having to make themselves available to clients. They were also free to choose their clients, and they were not prescribed which actions and practices they had to perform.
It is true that the women had to pay an entrance fee, did not freely determine the prices for their services, and initially had to hand over the entire proceeds to the…