Facts
The appellant, [A.] , filed a criminal complaint against [B.] on March 20, 2019, who was active as a bankruptcy administrator in the bankruptcy proceedings against the health insurance company [D.] . [A.] accuses [B.] of having committed criminal offenses by concluding two inadmissible agreements with the main creditor, [E.] . The agreements provided that [E.] would pay a dedicated amount into the bankruptcy estate, which was to be used exclusively to satisfy 68 creditors, customers of [C.] . The appellant claims that [B.] , by this behavior, made himself guilty of bribery in enforcement proceedings and abuse of office.
The High Court of the Canton of Zurich, 3rd Criminal Chamber, did not grant the prosecution the authorization for prosecution. The appellant lodged a complaint in public law matters with the Federal Court and requested that the prosecution Winterthur/Unterland be granted authorization to prosecute [B.] .
Considerations
The Federal Court examined whether the High Court could refuse the authorization for criminal prosecution of the respondent without violating federal law. The appellant requested from the Federal Court solely the authorization for the prosecution of the respondent for Art. 168 SCC (bribery in enforcement proceedings) and Art. 312 SCC (abuse of office).
The Federal Court came to the conclusion that the lower court could refuse the authorization for prosecution without violating federal law. There were no sufficient indications of a criminally relevant act by the respondent. The lower court was entitled to establish that there was no initial suspicion that the respondent had violated Art. 168 SCC.
The Federal Court also found that the lower court had rightly excluded an abuse of office by the respondent and rejected the…