Facts
[A. AG] operates the trade of pharmaceutical and chemical raw materials and products. [X.] was an executive employee of [A. AG] until the end of October 2008 and supervised the Indian companies [B.] and [C.] that were contractually associated with it. According to the indictment, [X.] is alleged to have induced the Indian companies to terminate their contracts with his employer [A. AG] and to distribute the products through [D. AG] , which is controlled by [Y.] , and later through his own company, while still employed by [A. AG] . Furthermore, [X.] is alleged to have passed on confidential documents of [A. AG] to [D. AG] . The District Court of Zurich convicted [X.] of multiple misappropriation of business assets, multiple breach of manufacturing and business secrets, and data damage, and sentenced him to 24 months' imprisonment. [Y.] was found guilty of aiding and abetting multiple misappropriation of business assets and multiple breach of manufacturing and business secrets and was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. However, the High Court of the Canton of Zurich acquitted [X.] of the charge of multiple misappropriation of business assets and also acquitted [Y.] of aiding and abetting this offence. Both were found guilty of breach of manufacturing and business secrets.Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that for criminal aiding and abetting under Art. 25 SCC, the conduct that the accomplice promotes must be qualified as constituting the elements of the offence and as…