Swiss Federal Supreme Court upholds crypto broker’s freeze of client assets on suspicion of sanctions control pending SECO determination

17 June 2026

The Swiss Federal Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal brought by a cryptocurrency company against a broker’s decision to freeze its assets on suspicion that they were under the indirect control of a sanctioned Russian person – Case 4A_537/2025.

A cryptocurrency company entered into a broker and storage agreement with a broker for the trading and custody of cryptocurrencies in 2021. The company’s COO (married to the company’s founder) was US-sanctioned in 2022 for being the nephew of a US, UK, EU and Swiss-sanctioned Russian businessperson. Although the COO was not himself Swiss-sanctioned, the broker blocked all transactions and refused to release the company’s assets because it suspected that the company was indirectly controlled by the sanctioned Russian businessperson.

Under Article 15 of Switzerland’s Ukraine Ordinance, funds and economic resources owned or directly or indirectly controlled by sanctioned persons must be frozen. Article 16 requires financial institutions to report assets to SECO, Switzerland’s sanctions enforcement authority, where there is a justified suspicion that they fall within the freeze. Once reported, it is for SECO to determine whether the freeze applies and to issue an order to that effect. See our Switzerland pages for details on the Ukraine Ordinance.

The company terminated the brokerage agreement and instructed the broker to return its assets. The broker refused, taking the view that it was obliged to keep the assets frozen pending a determination by SECO. The company brought a claim seeking their return. The Zurich Commercial Court dismissed the claim, finding that there were concrete indications that the company was indirectly controlled by the sanctioned businessperson and that the broker was therefore entitled to assume the freeze applied pending a determination on the company’s control by SECO.

The company appealed, arguing that a broker is only entitled to freeze assets once control is established, and not where it is merely suspected. The Federal Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It held that:

• A financial institution must freeze assets when it is required to do so by the Ukraine Ordinance. Under Art. 16(1) of the Ukraine Ordinance, the obligation to freeze & report assets arises where there is justified suspicion that a freeze applies pending SECO’s determination.

• Allowing assets to be unfrozen & released while a report to SECO was pending would defeat the purpose of the sanctions regime. SECO's role is to determine whether a freeze applies and to issue an order on the control; it could not perform that function effectively if assets could be moved before an order was made.

• The broker was therefore entitled and obliged to refuse the company’s instructions to release the assets, without waiting for a formal determination by SECO as to whether the assets were controlled by a sanctioned person and therefore subject to the freeze.

• The Commercial Court had been entitled to find concrete indications of indirect control by the sanctioned businessperson, and the broker justified in assuming the freeze applied and in refusing to release the company’s assets.