Facts
The Dutch company [B.] B.V. operated the telephone sex business with 156 numbers through [C. AG] in the early 1990s. In 1992, the District Attorney's Office in Zurich opened a criminal investigation against the responsible parties of [C. AG] for indecent publications and pornography. The District Attorney's Office seized the quota shares of [C. AG] in the telephone fees at the PTT companies. By penal order dated April 5, 1993, a responsible person of [C. AG] was punished for pornography, and a part of the seized assets was confiscated. [A. AG] in liquidation, which considered itself the assignee of [C. AG] , filed an objection to the confiscation. After various instances, the case ultimately reached the Federal Supreme Court.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court states that the canton does not step into the shoes of the debtor when seizing a claim and therefore the provisions of Art. 96 and 168 CO are not applicable. When releasing a seized claim after the seizure has been lifted, the criminal authorities must examine whether there is a case of doubt regarding the entitlement to the claim. If this is the case, they can set a deadline for the prima facie less entitled claimant to file a civil…