Facts
On 14 March 1996, the Public Prosecutor's Office at the Ordinary Court of Milan submitted to the Swiss authorities a request for international judicial assistance in the context of criminal proceedings opened against [B.] and [C.] for the offence of corruption. The request sought the identification of accounts or other banking relationships from which the two persons mentioned, or others connected to them, benefited at certain Ticino credit institutions, as well as the seizure of the documentation relating to the accounts found and the sums deposited therein.
The Federal Public Prosecutor's Office (MPC), to which the Federal Police Office (UFP) had delegated the execution of the request, ordered Bank [Z.] in Bellinzona to identify the accounts and other banking relationships of [B.] and [C.] and of persons/companies connected to them, as well as to proceed with the seizure of the identified assets and the related documentation.
The beneficial owners of the blocked banking relationships at Bank [Z.] filed a complaint with the Indictment Division of the Federal Court against this decision, requesting its annulment.
Considerations
The Federal Court first examined ex officio the admissibility of the remedy used. It found that, according to the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC), the coercive measures adopted by a federal authority, to which the UFP has delegated the implementation of a judicial assistance procedure, are not subject to appeal by way of complaint to the Indictment Division, but only by way of administrative appeal to the Federal Court.
The Federal Court…