Facts
Parties and procedural history: On 6 June 2023, the appellant ([A.] ) filed a criminal complaint against [B.] and [C.] for forgery of documents (Art. 251 SCC) and false statements to commercial register authorities (Art. 153 SCC) in connection with the [D.] Foundation. On 5 July 2023, the Public Prosecutor’s Office II of the Canton of Zurich decided not to initiate criminal proceedings. The appellant appealed this decision to the Higher Court of the Canton of Zurich, which dismissed the appeal on 2 February 2024. The appellant now brings an appeal in criminal matters to the Federal Supreme Court, seeking the annulment of the cantonal decision and the initiation of criminal proceedings against the accused. In addition, the appellant requests a declaration of his standing as a victim and the granting of legal aid.
Background: The appellant bases his standing to appeal on his appointment as a permanent member of the board of the [D.] Foundation in the will of the deceased Dr. [D.] . However, he was already removed from the board by judgment of the District Court of Zurich dated 16 May 2012. The District Court of Zurich also dismissed the appellant’s petition for revision on 10 January 2024. The appellant claims that the alleged offences directly harmed him as a private individual, in particular through discrimination during board meetings, a commercial court proceeding, and the re-registration of the foundation as a family foundation in the commercial register.
Considerations
1. Lack of standing to appeal The Federal Supreme Court first examines whether the appellant qualifies as a victim within the meaning of Art. 115 para. 1 CrimPC and thus has standing to appeal. Pursuant to this provision, a victim is a person who has been directly harmed in their rights by the offence. Standing to appeal requires that the appellant is the holder of the legal interest protected by the violated criminal norm. However, document offences (Art. 251 SCC) and false statements to commercial register authorities (Art. 153 SCC) primarily protect public interests, in particular confidence in legal transactions and the commercial register. Individual legal interests are only affected in exceptional cases where the offence is directed specifically against a particular person. The appellant has not demonstrated that the alleged offences directly harmed him as a private individual. His former position as a board member and the alleged discrimination are insufficient to establish a direct violation of rights, especially since the lower court has conclusively established his removal from the board.
2. Insufficient grounds for the appeal The appellant’s grounds for appeal do not meet the requirements of Art. 42 FSCA. While the appeal contains a detailed description of the facts, it fails to adequately address the reasoning of the lower court. Moreover, it lacks a coherent explanation of how the appellant was directly harmed by the alleged offences. The claim that the judgment of 16 May 2012 is void is not supported by judicial findings. The lower court did not arbitrarily establish the facts but based its decision on the case file and…