Background and strategic context

As leading global financial centers, Switzerland and Singapore are key mutual legal assistance partners. Until now, cooperation between Switzerland and Singapore has relied exclusively on domestic legislation in each jurisdiction, without a governing treaty framework. While Switzerland can grant extensive assistance under the Federal Act on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters ("IMAC") without a treaty, Singapore’s domestic framework distinguishes between treaty partners (prescribed foreign countries) and non-treaty states. Only treaty partners benefit from enhanced cooperation. Consequently, Swiss criminal justice authorities have faced significant procedural hurdles and delays when seeking assistance from Singapore, particularly in complex white-collar crime investigations.

To remove these friction points, the MLAT establishes a binding legal framework for mutual legal assistance in criminal investigations, prosecutions, and related proceedings for offences within the requesting state's jurisdiction.

Key provisions of the MLAT

Subject to the publication of the definitive texts, the key provisions of the MLAT include:

• Direct recognition of the powers of the Swiss public prosecutors for account freezes and disgorgement: In a major practical shift (Art. 14 MLAT), Singapore has agreed, as the first common-law jurisdiction, to recognize Swiss public prosecutors directly as competent authorities for requesting account freezes and asset confiscation. Previously, because Singaporean courts require judicial authorization for freezing measures, Swiss prosecutorial orders had to be confirmed by a Swiss court before transmission, causing delays and procedural complications. Under Art. 14 MLAT, Singapore will directly process requests for asset freezes and the execution of final confiscation orders issued by Swiss public prosecutors without prior Swiss court approval. This is a major practical change for parties to criminal proceedings involving asset freezing, restitution, or confiscation measures spanning both jurisdictions.
• Coverage of corporate criminal liability: Art. 2 para. 2 MLAT explicitly covers corporate criminal liability. Assistance may not be refused solely on the ground that the domestic law of the requested state does not provide for corporate criminal liability. This ensures that Swiss corporate criminal proceedings, namely under Art. 102 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC), can be effectively supported through mutual legal assistance.
• Fiscal offences: Art. 2 para. 3 MLAT provides for assistance "to the widest extent possible" in fiscal matters, subject to domestic law. For Switzerland, this references the IMAC standard, preserving the existing legal position (assistance remains unavailable for ordinary tax evasion, but applies to tax fraud).
• Confidentiality and notification mechanisms: In Singapore, targets of a mutual legal assistance request are typically not notified until formal charges are filed, whereas Swiss criminal procedure law grants affected parties participation and appeal rights prior to the transmission of evidence abroad. Art. 6 para. 1 MLAT balances these positions: while the requested state must make best efforts to maintain confidentiality, if domestic law mandates notification of the affected party, it must inform the requesting authority in advance, allowing it to decide whether to maintain or withdraw the request.
• Reduction of formal requirements and electronic transmission: The treaty eliminates authentication and legalization requirements for requests and supporting documents (Art. 22 MLAT) and establishes a legal basis for electronic transmission via secure channels (Art. 18 MLAT).
• Human rights safeguards and death penalty assurances: An integral side letter reaffirms Switzerland's obligation to refuse assistance if the underlying offence carries the death penalty under Singaporean law, unless Singapore provides binding assurances that the death penalty will not be sought, imposed, or executed. Assistance must likewise be refused if there are substantial grounds to believe that fundamental procedural guarantees under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) would be violated.

What's next?

The MLAT requires approval by the Swiss Federal Parliament and is subject to an optional people's referendum (fakultatives Referendum). In parallel, Singapore will complete its domestic ratification process. The treaty will enter into force 60 days after both states exchanged instruments of ratification, which is expected in spring 2027 at the earliest. Once in force, the treaty will significantly accelerate cross-border evidence gathering and asset recovery between Switzerland and Singapore.