Assets totaling CHF 6.3 billion are currently blocked in Switzerland in connection with the sanctions against Russia. The fact that there are fewer than at the beginning of April is due to the fact that funds blocked as a precaution were released again.
Ambassador Erwin Bollinger, head of the Bilateral Economic Relations department at the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco), told the media in Bern on Thursday. On April 7, 7.5 billion francs in assets were still blocked.
Since then, a further 2.2 billion francs have been newly reported. At the same time, CHF 3.4 billion that had been blocked as a precaution were released again.
Precautionary closures
Bollinger explained that many banks and insurance companies blocked assets as a precautionary measure in suspected cases. Because claims for damages could be made in the case of unjustified blocked assets, it is important that a well-founded examination is carried out.
“The amount of blocked funds is not an indicator of the quality of the implementation of the sanctions,” Bollinger continued. The asset freeze is by far not the most important part of the sanctions. Country comparisons are difficult. It is often not known on what basis other countries freeze assets.
From banks and insurance companies
According to Bollinger, the federal government receives reports from large and small banks and insurance companies in particular. Bollinger was unable to provide any information on the number of lawyers reporting. The Federal Office for Customs and Border Security (BAZG) is also involved. For example, it determines art objects from sanctioned persons in duty-free warehouses, which would then be blocked.
Meanwhile, when recognizing the assets of sanctioned persons, it is often unclear whether lawyers must always report to the authorities. “Basically, attorneys have a duty to ensure that they are not assisting in the violation of sanctions rules,” Bollinger said.
In the case of representation in court in particular, however, the attorney-client privilege takes precedence over the embargo regulations. Ultimately, however, only a court can decide whether the attorney-client privilege or the embargo law should be given greater weight. This has not yet happened. (SDA)