Facts
The appellant [X.] was president of the board of directors and managing director of the Gärtnerei [A.] cooperative. The nursery produced so-called "scent bags" from self-cultivated and purchased hemp, which were delivered to companies like [B. AG] . The appellant and his brother [Y.] were convicted by the District Court of Andelfingen for violating the Narcotics Act. The High Court of the Canton of Zurich upheld the convictions and sentenced each of the brothers to 18 months' imprisonment.
The appellant [X.] filed a federal appeal for annulment and requested that the judgment be overturned. He argued that the Winterthur District Attorney's Office was not locally competent to prosecute the alleged offense and that the objective elements of Art. 19 para. 1 NarcA were not met.
Considerations
The Federal Court examined the appeal for annulment and concluded that the contested decision did not violate federal law. The Court of Cassation is bound by the facts established by the cantonal authorities in the proceedings for a federal appeal for annulment.
The appellant argued that the Winterthur District Attorney's Office was not locally competent to prosecute the alleged offense. However, the Federal Court ruled that Art. 346 ff. SCC applies both in intercantonal and intracantonal relations and that there is no ordinary federal remedy against final cantonal decisions that concern intracantonal competence conflicts.
The appellant also argued that the objective elements of Art. 19 para. 1 NarcA were not met, as the THC content of the hemp had not been sufficiently determined. However, the Federal Court ruled that the lower court had rightly qualified the entire hemp distributed as a narcotic, since it was sold at prices and in quantities that were significantly higher than those of similar products without psychoactive effects.
The appellant finally…