Facts
The US authorities are conducting extensive investigations against various persons connected with the company [B.] S.A., its subsidiaries or related companies. The subject matter concerns bribery payments to officials of the company [C.] S.A. as well as money laundering. The US authorities requested mutual legal assistance from Switzerland on 2 May 2017, supplemented on 13 October 2017 and 18 April 2018.
A criminal proceeding conducted in the USA is directed against [D.] and [E.] , the former managing director of [B.] S.A. for Venezuela. By supplementary request for mutual legal assistance of 8 April 2019, the US Department of Justice requested the surrender of documents relating to two accounts at the bank [F.] S.A. and the bank [G.] S.A., held in the name of [A.] Corp. [E.] allegedly forwarded bribe money to [D.] , who transferred it, among other things, to Swiss accounts.
The Federal Office of Justice (FOJ) ordered by final decision of 31 January 2020 the surrender of the account documents. [A.] Corp. unsuccessfully challenged this before the Federal Criminal Court, Appeals Chamber, which dismissed the appeal by decision of 3 June 2020 (RR.2020.69).
By appeal in public law matters of 15 June 2020, the appellant ([A.] Corp., represented by counsel) requested the annulment of the decision and of the final decision and the refusal of mutual legal assistance, alternatively remittal to the Federal Criminal Court, subsidiarily to the FOJ. No exchange of written submissions was held.
The point at issue was whether a particularly significant case within the meaning of Art. 84 FSCA exists, in particular in view of the transmission of information from the secret domain and the objection of the principle ne bis in idem.
Considerations
The appeal in international mutual legal assistance matters in criminal matters is admissible under Art. 84 para. 1 FSCA only if the decision concerns, among other things, the transmission of information from the secret domain and a particularly significant case exists. Pursuant to Art. 84 para. 2 FSCA, such a case exists in particular if there are grounds to assume that fundamental procedural principles have been violated or that the foreign proceeding exhibits serious defects. This provision serves to effectively limit access to the Federal Supreme Court, which is why a particularly significant case is to be assumed restrictively and the Federal Supreme Court has a wide margin of discretion. The appellant must, pursuant to Art. 42 para. 2 FSCA, set out why this requirement is met.
The Federal Supreme Court notes that information from the secret domain is indeed affected, but that this is not a particularly significant case. The appellant relies essentially on the principle ne bis in idem under Art. 3 para. 1 lit. b of the mutual legal assistance treaty between Switzerland and the USA…