Assets rarely sit still. In the matter described below, funds had reached a Swiss account within days of a sophisticated payment-diversion fraud – and the clock was already running when the client first made contact.
Freezing assets in Switzerland requires coordinated action across two systems: the civil courts and the criminal-complaint mechanism. Neither path alone is fast enough. Together – with the right evidence and admitted local counsel acting immediately – they can stop dissipation before the defendant converts or moves the funds a second time.
This case study traces the situation, the strategy deployed, and the lessons that transfer to similar matters. Switzerland is a COORDINATE jurisdiction: Axiom Trace coordinates closely with admitted local counsel there; local procedure governs every filing.
Situation: payment-diversion fraud, funds in a Swiss account
A mid-size trading company in Western Europe discovered, in late autumn 2024, that a series of invoices had been redirected to a fraudulent account. The mechanism was a business email compromise scheme. The counterparty's email domain had been spoofed. Instructions arrived in a convincing format, the finance team authorised three transfers over six weeks, and the funds cleared into an account held at a Swiss private bank.
Total exposure fell in the mid-six-figure range – material but not so large that the prospect of recovery would obviously outweigh cost. The company's general counsel contacted us roughly ten days after the final transfer. The funds had not yet moved on from the Swiss account – but there was no guarantee they would stay.
Ten days is not long, but it is long enough for a defendant to notice scrutiny and act. The first question we asked was whether the Swiss account had been identified with sufficient precision to support a freezing application without tipping off the recipient.
Strategy: parallel civil and criminal pressure in Switzerland
The strategy rested on two tracks running simultaneously. Neither was optional.
Track one was a civil application for a provisional attachment – the Swiss equivalent of a freezing order – filed without notice through admitted local counsel. A provisional attachment in Switzerland requires the applicant to demonstrate a credible debt, a risk of dissipation, and an attachment ground recognised under Swiss civil procedure. All three were present. The fraud proceeds constituted a clear claim. The defendant had no known legitimate connection to the funds. And the cross-border nature of the scheme provided the dissipation risk.
Track two was a criminal complaint filed with the cantonal prosecution authority. Swiss criminal procedure allows the victim to act as a private complainant and, in that capacity, to apply for the sequestration of assets linked to the offence. Criminal sequestration in Switzerland can move faster than civil attachment in some cantons, and it places the investigative burden on the state rather than the claimant. The two tracks reinforce each other: a civil freeze holds value while the criminal process builds a record.
We assembled the evidence package: original email headers showing the spoofed domain, the fraudulent banking instructions, transfer confirmations, and a short chain-of-custody memo. Local counsel filed within three working days of our first instruction.
Process: what happened across the jurisdictions
The civil attachment was granted at first hearing. The court accepted the evidence of a credible underlying claim and, critically, the without-notice nature of the application meant the defendant had no advance warning. Assets in the identified account were frozen pending further order.
The criminal complaint was filed on the same day. The cantonal prosecution opened an investigation. Within a short period, the public prosecutor applied independently for a criminal sequestration order, which layered a second freeze on the same account. That dual coverage mattered: if one order had been challenged successfully, the other would have held value during the appeal.
On the company's side, we worked in parallel with the sending bank in Western Europe to obtain confirmation of the outgoing payment records and to preserve the correspondent-bank trail. A disclosure process directed at the receiving bank – coordinated through admitted Swiss counsel – produced account-opening documentation that identified the beneficial owner of the account. That identification was passed to the prosecution.
The defendant applied to lift the civil attachment, arguing the debt was disputed. The application was dismissed on the basis of the documentary record. The funds remained frozen.
A negotiated resolution followed some months later. We do not disclose terms. The point is that the freezing – secured within days of instruction – was what made a resolution possible at all. Without it, the defendant would have moved the money.
Transferable lessons for fraud victims and their advisers
Every matter is different. These patterns recur.
- Dual-track pressure works. Civil attachment and criminal sequestration are not alternatives in Switzerland – they are complements. Using only one track leaves a gap the defendant can exploit on appeal or during procedural delay.
- The first forty-eight hours are decisive. In our experience, the single most common reason a freeze fails is that the claimant waited – to consult the bank, to take internal advice, to decide whether the amount justified action. By then, the window had closed.
- Evidence assembly and filing must run in parallel, not in sequence. Waiting for a complete evidence set before instructing counsel costs days. A provisional attachment can be filed on the best evidence available; it can be supplemented as the record grows.
- Reporting to the bank is necessary, but it is not sufficient. A bank will suspend a transaction if caught in time; it will not freeze an account that has already received cleared funds without a court order compelling it to do so. The myth that a bank report is "enough" is one of the most expensive misconceptions in fraud recovery.
- Cross-border asset recovery Switzerland demands admitted local counsel from the outset. Axiom Trace coordinated the investigative and cross-border aspects; every filing was made by locally admitted practitioners. That division is not optional – it is what the Swiss system requires.
- Beware of recovery firms that approach you after the loss. In our experience, the period immediately after a fraud attracts operators who promise quick recovery in exchange for an upfront fee and then disappear. Legitimate asset recovery involves court process, local counsel, and honest assessment of risk – not guarantees and advance payments. See our guidance on recovering scam proceeds for more on how to distinguish genuine recovery counsel from a second fraud.
If you are in the first hours after a fraud and funds have reached Switzerland – or any other jurisdiction – the priority is evidence preservation and immediate specialist advice. Every hour without a freeze is an hour the defendant can act. For broader guidance on fraud response, visit the Fraud Response insight hub. For jurisdiction-specific detail on Swiss asset recovery, see our Switzerland jurisdiction page.
If funds have already moved, time matters – request a confidential case review at info@axiomtracel.com.
About Axiom Trace
Axiom Trace is an independent boutique focused on cross-border and crypto asset recovery. We trace assets that have moved across borders or on-chain and coordinate their freezing and recovery – working with defrauded principals, insolvency practitioners, and the lawyers and funders who refer them. We work lawfully and within applicable sanctions regimes, alongside local counsel where proceedings must be filed. In matters such as the one described above, our role is to move fast, assemble the evidence, and coordinate every thread so that local counsel can file without delay. To discuss a matter, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is for general information only and is not legal advice, nor a promise or prediction of recovery. No outcome is guaranteed. Asset recovery depends on the specific facts and on the law and procedure of each relevant jurisdiction. In Switzerland, local admitted counsel must act on all filings; Axiom Trace coordinates closely with such counsel but does not hold itself out as admitted to practise Swiss law. Axiom Trace assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Recovering cross-border or crypto assets?
Confidential first review. We map tracing and recovery options and tell you honestly whether a matter is worth pursuing.
Request a case review