Facts
On 31 May 2017, the Bezirksgericht Zürich found [D.] , among other things, guilty of multiple counts of misappropriation, breach of trust (ungetreue Geschäftsbesorgung) and mismanagement, and sentenced him to a custodial sentence of 6½ years and to payment of damages to private claimants. It ordered the appellant [A.A.] , [B.A.] and [C.A.] , as other parties to the proceedings, to pay substitute claims (CHF 150'000.-- or CHF 685'000.-- or CHF 30'000.--, respectively). The seizure of the appellant's cash assets was upheld. It did not entertain the compensation application.
On the appeal, the Obergericht of the Canton of Zürich declined to hear the appeal in October 2017 because the procedural deposits were not paid. On 17 January 2018, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the complaint and remitted the matter (BGE 144 IV 17). By judgment of 24 January 2019, the Obergericht substantially reduced the substitute claims. By judgment 6B_334/2019 of 28 January 2020, the Federal Supreme Court partially set aside the contested judgment: the requirements for confiscation were not met, since [D.] had settled a debt with indirectly transferred CHF 650'000.--; the Austrian criminal judgment against [C.A.] also did not preclude contractual claims.
By judgment of 19 June 2020, the Obergericht waived the substitute claim, lifted the seizure of the cash assets and awarded procedural compensation to the three participants for the first-instance proceedings and the two appeal proceedings. It did not decide on the appellant's further compensation and redress claims (house searches of 2012 and 5 November 2015, deregistration and delayed master's degree, expenses for the interview of 15 June 2016, costs of the unsealing proceedings, seizure of assets, interest).
The appellant, who in the criminal proceedings against [D.] was formally neither an accused nor a private claimant, but as an aggrieved third party held a position similar to that of an accused, applies to the Federal Supreme Court to set aside the judgment of 19 June 2020 and to instruct the lower court to reassess all claims under Art. 429 para. 1 lit. a, b and c CrimPC, plus accrued interest; in the alternative, the Court should decide the matter itself. The Public Prosecutor's Office and the lower court waived their right to comment.
Considerations
The appellant complains that the lower court wrongly examined only his claim for legal costs in the appeal proceedings and did not assess of its own motion his other claims under Art. 429 para. 1 lit. a, b and c CrimPC, and did not hear him under Art. 429 para. 2 CrimPC. Under Art. 429 para. 1 CrimPC, an accused person is entitled, upon acquittal or discontinuation, to compensation for procedural expenses, economic losses and redress. The criminal authority examines the claim of its own motion and may request that it be quantified and substantiated; however, it must at least hear the parties. According to settled case law, an implied waiver may be assumed where there is no response to such a request.
Third parties who have suffered loss through procedural acts are entitled to appropriate compensation and redress under Art. 434 para. 1 CrimPC. Art. 433 para. 2 CrimPC applies by analogy, so the authorities must inform the person entitled to claim of their right to apply and of the duty to quantify and substantiate the claim.
The Federal Supreme Court notes that the appellant, although formally neither an accused nor a private claimant, had a position similar to that of an accused because of several house searches and a seizure lasting several years, which were based on the allegation that he had received criminal assets without consideration. The lower court correctly assumed this.
The compensation claims in the appeal proceedings evidently concerned only the legal costs from the appellant's mandate in January 2017 onwards. The lawyer…