{"id":"court_ctb_1410_0","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":1410,"sub_number":0,"doc_type":"MOTION","filed_date":null,"title":"UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION | -<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<b","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT BRIDGEPORT DIVISION**\n\n| -<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>- | -<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>- | -X                     |                         |\n|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------|------------------------|-------------------------|\n| INRE:                                                                                                           |                                 | Chapter 11             |                         |\n| HO WAN KWOK, et al.,                                                                                            |                                 |                        | Case No. 22-50073 (JAM) |\n|                                                                                                                 |                                 | (Jointly Administered) |                         |\n|                                                                                                                 |                                 |                        |                         |\n| -<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>- | -<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>-<br>- | -X                     |                         |\n\n### **DECLARATION OF PROFESSOR DR. FELIX DASSER, LL.M. IN OPPOSITION TO CLAIMANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL**\n\nI, Professor Dr. Felix Dasser, LL.M., declare as follows:\n\n### **I. Professional Qualifications**\n\n1. I am qualified to practice law before the Swiss bar and I am a partner at Hamburger AG, a law firm in Zurich, Switzerland.\n\n2. I am also an Adjunct Professor of Law *(Titularprofessor)* at the University of Zurich. I teach mainly international dispute resolution, private international law, and contract law.\n\n3. I hold a PhD degree in law from the University of Zurich (1989) and an LL.M. degree from Harvard Law School (1990) and had a post-doctoral thesis (professorial *\"Habilitation\")*  accepted by the University of Zurich in 1999.\n\n4. My *curriculum vitae,* including a list of publications, is attached as Exhibit 1.\n\n#### **II. Scope of Engagement**\n\n5. I have been engaged by UBS AG (\"UBS AG\") in order to address certain questions of Swiss law in relation to the proceedings currently pending involving Ho Wan Kwok as well as Luc A. Despins in his capacity as the chapter 11 trustee appointed in the Ho Wan Kwok's chapter 11 case (\"the Trustee\") and UBS AG, Case No. 22-50073 (\"the Case\"), in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Connecticut, Bridgeport Division (\"the Court\").\n\n6. In particular, my engagement concerns a motion to compel by the Trustee filed in the Court seeking the production by UBS AG of certain documents relating to accounts, funds, transactions and other activities related to certain entities and persons and other financial information in Switzerland (\"the Motion to Compel\") as specified in the Trustee's Subpoena for Rule 2004 Examination dated September 22, 2022 (\"the Subpoena\").\n\n- 7. I am advised by UBS AG that:\n\t- a. all Swiss-booked wealth management and retail & corporate accounts were moved from UBS AG to a new subsidiary, UBS Switzerland AG (\"UBS Switzerland\"), as of June 14, 2015 as a consequence of a spin-off of the Swiss booked business into a separate and independent business unit in response to a request by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (\"FINMA\"), the Swiss financial market regulator. Therefore, the respective information and documents would not be in the possession or under the control of UBS AG;\n\t- b. the information and documents requested, to the extent that they exist, concern the banking relationship, if any, of UBS AG and/or UBS Switzerland (together \"the UBS Companies\") with various persons and entities listed in the Subpoena and defined as the 2004 Discovery Targets (\"the 2004 Discovery Targets\"). I am\n\nnot informed of any waiver of the banking secrecy by the 2004 Discovery Targets.\n\n8. The questions regarding which my opinion has been requested are the following:\n\n(1) Are there any impediments under Swiss law against UBS AG providing documents situated in Switzerland under the Subpoena, and if so, what would be the sanctions in case of a breach?\n\n(2) Are there alternative means of providing the documents available under Swiss law?\n\n9. My response to the questions is set forth below.\n\n### III. **Conclusions**\n\n(1) In summary, I am of the opinion that production of documents by UBS AG as listed in the Subpoena would be prohibited by Swiss criminal law, namely article 4 7 Swiss Banking Act (\"SBA\"), articles 271 Swiss Penal Code (\"SPC\") and article 273 SPC, and would expose any employees and agents of UBS AG who are involved in the production of the documents, to criminal sanctions, including imprisonment.\n\n(2) Document production may instead legally be obtained through the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence.\n\n#### **IV. Issues of Swiss Law**\n\n10. Attached as Exhibit 2 for the Court's convenience are unofficial translations of the Swiss statutes referenced herein.\n\n#### **A. Swiss Banking Secrecy**\n\n11. To the extent that documents sought by the Trustee contain information about a customer relationship with a Swiss bank, such as the UBS Companies, article 47(1) of the Swiss\n\nBanking Act ofNovember 8, 1934 (\"SBA\") must be taken into account. Article 47 SBA provides that bank employees and agents who violate their duty of confidentiality are subject to criminal sanctions, including imprisonment. The relevant provisions read as follows:\n\n\"1 Whoever intentionally does the following shall be imprisoned up to three years or fined accordingly:\n\na. disclose confidential information entrusted to them in their capacity as a member of an executive or supervisory body, employee, representative, or liquidator of a bank or a person in accordance with article *lb,* as member of a body or employee of an audit firm or that they have observed in this capacity;\n\nb. attempt to induce an infraction of the professional secrecy;\n\nc. disclose confidential information to third parties or use this information for own benefits or the benefit of others.\n\n1 bis Whoever enriches themselves or others with an action in accordance with (1 )( a) or (c) shall be punished with imprisonment for up to five years or fined accordingly.\n\n2 Whoever acts in negligence shall be penalized with a fine ofup to CHF 250,000 [ ... ]\"\n\n12. A Swiss bank is required to keep its relationships with bank customers secret. It may divulge information affecting the financial privacy of its customers only upon a waiver by the customer or by order of a competent Swiss court (Gunter Stratenwerth, in: WatterN ogt/Bauer/- Winzeler, eds., Basler Kommentar Bankengesetz [ commentary to the Swiss Banking Act], 2nd ed. 2013, N 25 *et seq. ad* Art. 47 SBA [\"BSK-Stratenwerth\"]).\n\n13. Article 4 7 SBA was enacted in 1934 on the background of a traditionally strong right to privacy applying to all persons, irrespective of whether they are Swiss or foreign, and to domestic and international situations (BSK-Stratenwerth, N 1 *ad* Art. 47 SBA; Federal Supreme Court BGE 137 [2011] II 431 cons. 2.1.1). Thus, article 47 SBA is not a \"blocking statute\" directed against U.S. authorities as is sometimes alleged in ignorance of the historic context.\n\n14. The banking secrecy as protected by article 47 SBA covers any and all information about a customer, including, in particular, the existence or inexistence of a banking relationship as such, any account details, transactions performed on behalf of a customer, and any documents concerning such a banking relationship *(see* BSK-Stratenwerth, N 13 *ad* Art. 47 SBA; Jorg Schwarz, in: Ackermann, ed., Wirtschaftsstrafrecht der Schweiz, 2nd ed. 2021 Bern, §19 N 75, p. 690 [\"Schwarz\"]). Thus, any information or documents concerning a possible banking relationship of the UBS Companies with the 2004 Discovery Targets are protected by article 47 SBA.\n\n15. It is worth noting that over the past decade, Parliament has slightly expanded the scope of the provision and increased the penalties in certain situations, thereby indicating the Swiss interest in protecting the banking secrecy from breaches by individual persons, while Switzerland at the same time facilitated the disclosure of banking data through official governmental channels.\n\n16. Any violation of article 4 7 SBA has to be prosecuted *ex officio,* even in the absence of any complaint by the customer (Schwarz, § 19 N **111,** p. 699). This indicates the strong public policy underlying the financial privacy of bank customers.\n\n17. Under Swiss law, the restrictions of article 4 7 SBA may not be lifted due to the order of a foreign court. Thus, an order issued by a foreign court to collect and produce documents covered by the banking secrecy for use in foreign civil proceedings may not be followed by employees or agents of a Swiss bank without violating article47 SBA (Schwarz, §19 N 104, p. 697).\n\n18. To the extent an employee or agent of the UBS Companies assisted with the collection and/or production of the requested documents, he or she would be committing a criminal offense punishable by up to three years in prison, regardless of whether such collection and/or production was done in response to the order of a foreign court.\n\n19. To the extent that an employee or agent of UBS AG would ask, request or otherwise instigate an employee of UBS Switzerland to provide customer information or documents, such employee or agent of UBS AG would also be punishable pursuant to article 47 SBA, even if UBS AG were considered a third party with respect to customers of UBS Switzerland *(see* BSK-Stratenwerth, N 16 *ad* Art. 47SBA).\n\n20. Violations of the banking secrecy are regularly prosecuted and sanctioned by Swiss public prosecutors and courts. The Swiss Federal Statistical Office reports on average about a dozen criminal convictions per year relating to the SBA (articles 46, 47, 49 SBA), but does not report separate figures for violation of the banking secrecy. 1 *(See*  http) I understand that there are on average several convictions under article 4 7 SBA per year. I have personal knowledge of several criminal proceedings and also of convictions.\n\n21. In an *amicus* brief filed in the action captioned *US* v. *UBS AG,* No. 09-cv-20423 in the Southern District of Florida on April 30, 2009, the Government of Switzerland stated that, \"[s]ince 1993, there have been 48 convictions for violations of article 47.\" The *amicus* brief and relevant supporting declaration are attached as Exhibit 3. Some cases are public knowledge, such as the conviction and sentencing to three years imprisonment of a German national who worked at a Swiss bank and provided customer data to German tax authorities in violation primarily of article 47 SBA and article 273 SPC (Federal Criminal Court SK.2013 .26, August 22, 2013). Under similar circumstances a former employee of Credit Suisse was sentenced to two years imprisonment (Federal Criminal Court SK.2011.21 , December 15, 2011). An employee of\n\n-6-\n\nTo put this figure into perspective: in Switzerland, there are on average 15 convictions for murder per year (BSK-Schwarzenegger, Section I *ad* Art. 112 SPC).\n\nHyposwiss Privatbank AG who disclosed customer information to a Swiss attorney for forwarding to his foreign client was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for, primarily, attempted violation of article 273 SPC (merely attempted because the Swiss attorney reported to the Swiss authorities, not to his client) and violation of article 47 SBA (Federal Criminal Court SK.2013.37 December 10, 2013).\n\n22. In a recent Federal Supreme Court case, the issue was whether a former employee of a bank violated the banking secrecy when he (allegedly by mere oversight) produced documents which contained unredacted customer data in a labor court case against the bank. The Supreme Court held that article 4 7 SBA is applicable even in such a situation, where the protected information was merely disclosed to the court, the records of which are not public, and remitted the case to the lower court to further assess the facts of the potential breach of the banking secrecy (6B\\_247/2019, June 22, 2020).\n\n23. In addition, in case of violation of the banking secrecy, a bank as well as its senior employees would face serious regulatory action and potential sanctions by FINMA for collecting or producing information or documents covered by the banking secrecy under the requirement to be \"fit and proper to do business\". For an employee, such sanctions may include a disqualification to work for a regulated Swiss financial institution in a senior position.\n\n#### **B. Protection of Swiss Sovereignty (Article 271 SPC)**\n\n24. Article 271(1) of the Swiss Penal Code of December 21, 1937 (\"SPC\") provides:\n\n\"Any person who carries out activities on behalf of a foreign state on Swiss territory without lawful authority, where such activities are the responsibility of a public authority or public official,\n\nany person who carries out such activities for a foreign party or organisation,\n\nany person who facilitates such activities\n\nshall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty, or in serious cases to a custodial sentence of not less than one year.\n\n25. As is typical for a civil law country, Switzerland considers the taking of evidence to be a purely judicial function. Thus, any taking of evidence in court proceedings is seen as an action reserved to public authorities, even if undertaken by private parties or counsel. If such taking of evidence is done for foreign proceedings, it is prohibited by article 271 SPC. This includes the production of documents in the context of discovery proceedings. The same applies if a party is to produce documents in a foreign proceeding that are not in its possession or under its control and have to be gathered in Switzerland from a third party in a manner that is similar to investigations under judicial assistance (Markus Husmann, in: Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Strafrecht [commentary to the Swiss Penal Code] II, 4th ed. 2019 [\"BSK-Husmann\"], N 49 *ad* Art. 271 SPC).\n\n26. Under Swiss law, each affiliated company in a group of companies is qualified as a separate legal entity. In the present case, all Swiss retail, corporate and wealth management bank accounts held at UBS AG were moved to UBS Switzerland as of June 14, 2015. Thus, account information, if any, pertaining to the 2004 Discovery Targets is not in possession or under control of UBS AG.\n\n27. To the extent that UBS AG may have its own information or documents relating to the 2004 Discovery Targets, UBS AG cannot disclose such information or documents under a subpoena order from a foreign court without violating article 271 SPC, as UBS AG would be considered acting on behalf of such foreign court *(see* Guidelines International Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters, Federal Office of Justice, 3rd ed. 2003, last updated January 2013, p. 20 *et seq.;*  available at https :/ /www.rhf.admin.ch/rhf/ de/home/zi vilrecht/wegleitungen.html).\n\n28. Furthermore, in recent years the Swiss Government has considered production of document to foreign authorities to be in violation of article 2 71 SPC if they contain information about third parties who have not consented to the disclosure (BSK-Husmann, N 45 *ad* Art. 271 SPC with references to decisions of the Federal Justice and the Federal Finance Departments). Any production of documents would, therefore, require careful redaction of any information that would allow the identification of third parties, such as the 2004 Disclosure Targets.\n\n29. Cases of article 271 SPC are usually dealt with at the level of the public prosecutors and the lower courts and thus often not rendered public. Few cases reach the higher courts. A recent exception is a saga concerning the chairman of an asset management company (not a bank) who, in 2013, disclosed client data to the U.S. Department of Justice (\"DOJ\") in the context of the DOJ's investigations against Swiss financial institutions for aiding and abetting tax fraud by U.S. taxpayers. The chairman did so in view of a non-prosecution agreement reached with the DOJ. The first instance Federal Criminal Court acquitted him against all expectations, arguing that he had not been aware of the violation of article 271 SPC (SK.2017.64, May 9, 2018). The Federal Supreme Court set this judgment aside because an error about the criminal nature of an act is not an obstacle to punishment even though such an error may be taken into account in the assessment of the punishment ( 6B \\_ 804/2018, December 4, 2018). The accused was then duly convicted by the Federal Criminal Court, although merely with a fine of CHF 10,000, not imprisonment, because of the alleged error of the accused about the applicability of article 2 71 SPC (SK.2018. 71, May 2, 2019). An appeal by the accused was dismissed by the Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court (CA.2019.6, December 5, 2019). A further appeal by the accused against this judgment was dismissed by the Federal Supreme Court (68\\_2016/2020, November 1, 2021, partly published as a so-called leading decision in Decisions of the Federal Tribunal [\"DFT\"] 148 [2022]\n\nIV 66)2. The decision is attached as Exhibit 4 together with an unofficial English translation by the undersigned.\n\n30. While it is not entirely clear to what extent the reasoning in these decisions is also applicable in cases concerning foreign civil cases instead of foreign criminal investigations, e.g. by the DOJ, the decisions are generally interpreted as indicating a strict approach by the Swiss courts.\n\n31. In particular, the Federal Supreme Court held:\n\n\" [ ... ]it is widely undisputed in the doctrine that an act which is accompanied by a violation or circumvention of Swiss or international administrative or judicial assistance law or which, according to administrative and judicial assistance law, lies within the jurisdiction of a Swiss authority or official, is covered by article 271 para. 1 SPC ([ ... ]). Circumvention of administrative or judicial assistance by a Swiss party is not a preliminary act within the meaning of article 271 para. I section 3 SPC, but the original act within the meaning of article 271 para. 1 section I SPC ([ ... ]). As the lower court correctly states, there is extensive discussion in the doctrine as to whether and to what extent the collection of documents with a view to foreign proceedings and their subsequent submission can be punishable. This, as well as all conceivable constellations, need not be discussed in detail in the present case. What is decisive is that the release of information and documents that can only be lawfully released in Switzerland by sovereign order affects the legal interest protected by article 271 SPC ([ ... ]).In all constellations, only files and information that can be freely disposed of may be handed over. Only the official or legal assistance channel offers a procedural vessel in which secrecy and disclosure obligations can be juxtaposed and the principle of speciality can be guaranteed ([ ... ]). It is not possible to freely dispose of identifying information about third parties that is not publicly accessible([ ... ]).\"<sup>3</sup>\n\n32. As a consequence, the accused violated article 271 SPC when he surrendered data about\n\nhis clients in circumvention of the judicial assistance laws.\n\n3 DFT 148 (2022) IV 66, cons. 1.4.2.\n\n<sup>2</sup>  Note: all of these decisions are publicly available on the webpage of the respective court. Important reasons for judgment of the Federal Supreme Court are, in addition, traditionally published in the series Decisions of the Federal Tribunal as an indispensable source of Swiss case law.\n\n3 3. This case was a rare one that reached the level of the Federal Criminal Court and the Federal Supreme Court, but convictions occur regularly even though internationally active Swiss entities are normally well aware of article 271 SPC and cautious. Between 1976 and 2017, there have been 35 convictions for violations of Art. 271 SPC *(see* BSK-Husmann, Section I *ad* Art. 271 SPC).\n\n34. The risk of violating article 271 SPC is taken very seriously in cross-border situations. In my own practice, I advise clients on how to avoid a potential violation of article 271 SPC in the context of foreign legal proceedings almost on a weekly basis.\n\n35. It is important to note that article 271 SPC is not intended to prevent the taking of evidence, but rather ensures that the taking of evidence in aid of foreign proceedings is conducted through the Swiss courts, such as pursuant to the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters of March 18, 1970 (\"the Hague Evidence Convention\") (which is in force, amongst others, in Switzerland, Hong Kong and the United States of America). It thus protects Swiss sovereignty.\n\n#### **C. Economic Espionage (Article 273 SPC)**\n\n36. A person who collaborates in taking evidence in Switzerland for use in American court proceedings may face criminal prosecution and conviction for economic espionage pursuant to article 273 SPC, if the taking of evidence is not in accordance with the procedures provided for in the Hague Evidence Convention. Article 273 SPC reads as follows:\n\n\"Any person who seeks to obtain a manufacturing or trade secret. in order to make it available to an external official agency, a foreign organisation, a private enterprise, or the agents of any of these, or,\n\nany person who makes a manufacturing or trade secret available to an foreign official agency, a foreign organisation, a private enterprise, or the agents of any of these,\n\nshall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty, or in serious cases to a custodial sentence of not less than one year. Any custodial sentence may be combined with a monetary penalty.\"\n\n37. Article 273 SPC is designed to protect national public and economic interests at large\n\n(BSK-Husmann, N 5 *ad* Art. 273 SPC).\n\n38. A *secret* within the meaning of article 273 SPC is any fact which is not publicly known or accessible *(e.g.,* via publicly accessible internet) and which shall be kept secret pursuant to the intention of the master of the secret, provided that this interest in keeping it secret is worth being protected. Moreover, the secret must have a connection to Switzerland, either because it affects Swiss national interests or because the private party whose secrets are protected resides in Switzerland (BSK-Husmann, N 12, 53 *ad* Art. 273 SPC).\n\n39. In 1977, the Swiss Federal Attorney General issued guidelines as to what constitutes economic espionage under article 273 SPC. The crucial statements are as follows *(see* BSK-Husmann, N 20 *et seqq. ad* Art. 273 SPC):4\n\n\"1. Insofar as the disclosure is restricted to information with respect to which solely the disclosing person has an interest in secrecy, the decision on the disclosure of such matters may be left to that person .\n\n<sup>4</sup>  Unofficial translation by the undersigned.\n\n2. However, according to article 273 SPC it is forbidden and punishable to inform a foreign entity about economic circumstances\n\na) in which there is a (direct) national interest in secrecy, or\n\nb) in the secrecy of which a third party, who has not previously given his formal consent, has an interest worthy of protection.\"\n\n40. Consequently, while a party requested to provide confidential information may waive the confidentiality of its own secrets for purposes of article 273 SPC, it may not do so to the extent that Swiss third party secrets or the interests of Switzerland as a whole are involved *(i.e.,* when there is a \"Swiss nexus\"). Whether this is the case depends on the particular circumstances. With regard to bank accounts, in particular, the mere existence of a Swiss bank account suffices for the necessary Swiss nexus even if the account holders are non-Swiss *(see* Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court BB.2013.133 cons. 5.2, April 16, 2014; BSK-Husmann, N 56 *et seq. ad*  Art. 273 SPC).\n\n41. In particular, according to the view of the Swiss Federal Government, a person or entity disclosing secrets as specified above in compliance with a foreign subpoena order or any other order threatening adverse inference or worse in case of non-compliance is in breach of article 273 SPC. The Federal Government even opines that such foreign pressure, however strong it might be, does not create a state of distress justifying the breach of article 273 SPC (BSK-Husmann, N 83 *ad* Art. 273 SPC).\n\n42. Disclosure of secrets does not violate the law if a competent Swiss authority orders disclosure, *i.e.,* by way of judicial assistance proceedings. Conversely, an order by a foreign authority does not justify disclosure *(See* BSK-Husmann, N 78 *et seqq. ad* Art. 273 SPC).\n\n43. Between 1960 and 2016, 102 convictions for violation of article 273 SPC have been rendered *(see* BSK-Husmann, Section I *ad* Art. 273 SPC).\n\n#### **D. Judicial Assistance**\n\n44. Neither article 47 SBA nor articles 271 or 273 SPC are so-called \"blocking statutes\" that would entirely prevent the taking of evidence.\n\n45. To the contrary, Swiss courts can order the production of documents from Switzerland, including the disclosure of secret information about bank customers, for use in foreign proceedings through the route of the Hague Evidence Convention *(see* Federal Office of Justice, Guidelines, *op. cit.,* pp. 20 *et seq.).*\n\n46. Such judicial assistance proceedings are rather frequent. Any such requests by a foreign court that comply with the Hague Evidence Convention are processed by Swiss authorities in a timely manner as I know from my own practical experience with several such proceedings. Typically, such proceedings take between a few weeks and three months.\n\n4 7. To the extent that documents and information are produced under order of a Swiss court in judicial assistance proceedings, Swiss privacy rules and criminal statutes preventing the production of documents abroad do not apply. This is explicitly stated in article 47(5) SBA with regard to the banking secrecy:\n\n\"(5) The federal and cantonal provisions on the duty to provide evidence or on the duty to provide information to an authority shall be exempted from this provision.\"\n\nI hereby solemnly declare the foregoing to be true and correct.\n\nExecuted on January 27, 2023.\n\nProfessor Dr. Felix Dasser, LL.M.\n\n-14-\n\n## **Official Certification**\n\n**Seen for authentication of the reverse side signature of**\n\n**Mr. Prof. Dr. iur. Felix DASSER, born 3rd May 1958, Swiss citizen of Thalwil und Herrliberg, according to his information residing at Rietliweg 80, 8704 Herrliberg, personally known to us.**\n\n**The signature was acknowledged before us by an authorized third party.**\n\n**This legalization refers only to the authentication of the signature and not to the contents or validity of the document.**\n\n**Zurich, 27th January 2023 BK no. 369 Fee CHF 20.00**\n\n![](_page_14_Picture_7.jpeg)\n\n**NOTARIAT UNTERSTRASS-ZURICH**\n\n1- V\\A~ **Armin uhn, Notary Public**\n\n|                                                                                                                                                              | (Convention de la Haye du 5 octobre 1961)                                     |  |\n|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--|\n| 1. Land Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft. Ka nton Zurich<br>Country Swss Confederation, Canton of Zurich<br>Diese 6ffentliche Urkunde / n,,s public document |                                                                               |  |\n| 2. ist unterschneben van                                                                                                                                     |                                                                               |  |\n| has oeen signed by                                                                                                                                           | Armin Kuhn                                                                    |  |\n| 3. in seiner E1genschait als                                                                                                                                 |                                                                               |  |\n| acting 111 the capacity of                                                                                                                                   | Notary Public                                                                 |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                              | 4 sie ist versehen mit dem Stempel/Siegel des (der) - bears the stamp/seai of |  |\n| Notarial Unterstras s-Zurich Kt Zurich                                                                                                                       |                                                                               |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                               |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                              | Bestatigt t Certified                                                         |  |\n| 5. In I at 8090 Zurich I Zurich                                                                                                                              | 6. am I the<br>27 01 2023                                                     |  |\n| 7 durch die Staatskanzlei des Kantons Zurich<br>by the Cnancellery of State of the Canton of Zuri ch                                                         |                                                                               |  |\n| 8. unter Nr. I under N°                                                                                                                                      | 1275835/2023                                                                  |  |\n| 10. Unterschrift I Signature<br>9 Stempel/Siegel, Stamp/seal                                                                                                 |                                                                               |  |\n| :-:                                                                                                                                                          | l<br>{1<br>y1                                                                 |  |\n| \\(ffAf2                                                                                                                                                      | S. Overkott                                                                   |  |\n|                                                                                                                                                              |                                                                               |  |","body_zh":"美利坚合众国破产法院 康涅狄格州地区 布里奇波特分院\n\n-　-X\n\n关于：　第11章\nHO WAN KWOK（郭文贵）等人，　案号 22-50073 (JAM)\n（合并管理）\n\n-　-X\nFELIX DASSER 教授、法学硕士为反对债权人强制披露动议所作的声明\n\n本人，Felix Dasser 教授、法学硕士，声明如下：\n一、专业资格\n\n1. 本人具备在瑞士律师协会执业的资格，并为瑞士苏黎世 Hamburger AG 律师事务所的合伙人。\n\n2. 本人亦为苏黎世大学的法学兼职教授（Titularprofessor）。本人主要教授国际争议解决、国际私法和合同法。\n\n3. 本人于苏黎世大学取得法学博士学位（1989），于哈佛法学院取得法学硕士学位（1990），并于1999年获苏黎世大学接受博士后论文（教授资格论文“教授任职资格论文”）。\n\n4. 本人的履历，包括出版物清单，作为证据1随附于后。\n二、委托范围\n\n5. UBS AG（瑞银集团）委托本人就目前在美利坚合众国破产法院康涅狄格州地区布里奇波特分院（“本院”）待决的、涉及 Ho Wan Kwok（郭文贵）、Luc A. Despins（卢克·A·德斯平斯）以其在 Ho Wan Kwok 第11章案件中获任命的第11章受托人身份（“受托人”）以及 UBS AG 的程序中若干瑞士法问题发表意见，案号为 22-50073（“本案”）。\n\n6. 尤其是，本人的委托涉及受托人在本院提交的一项强制披露动议，该动议寻求责令 UBS AG 提供与若干实体和个人有关的账户、资金、交易及其他活动，以及在瑞士的其他财务信息有关的某些文件（“强制披露动议”）；具体如受托人日期为 September 22, 2022 的《依据规则2004进行审查的传票》（“传票”）所载。\n\n7. UBS AG 告知本人：\n\na. 由于应瑞士金融市场监督管理局（Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority，FINMA）——瑞士金融市场监管机构——的要求，将瑞士账簿业务分拆为一个独立的业务单位，截至 June 14, 2015，所有在瑞士入账的财富管理及零售与公司账户均已由 UBS AG 转至一家新的子公司 UBS Switzerland AG（瑞银瑞士）；因此，相关信息和文件不会由 UBS AG 持有或控制；\n\nb. 所要求的信息和文件，在其存在的范围内，涉及 UBS AG 和／或 UBS Switzerland（合称“UBS 公司”）与传票中列出并定义为2004取证目标（“2004取证目标”）的各类个人和实体之间可能存在的银行业务关系。本人未获悉2004取证目标曾放弃银行保密权。\n\n8. 请求本人发表意见的问题如下：\n\n(1) 根据瑞士法，UBS AG 提供传票项下位于瑞士的文件是否存在任何障碍；如有，违反时将受到何种制裁？\n\n(2) 根据瑞士法，是否存在提供该等文件的替代途径？\n\n9. 本人对上述问题的答复载列如下。\n三、结论\n\n(1) 概括而言，本人认为，UBS AG 按照传票所列提供文件将为瑞士刑法所禁止，即《瑞士银行法》（“SBA”）第47条、《瑞士刑法典》（“SPC”）第271条及第273条，并将使参与提供文件的 UBS AG 任何雇员和代理人面临刑事制裁，包括监禁。\n\n(2) 文件披露可改为通过《关于从国外调取民事或商事证据的海牙公约》依法取得。\n四、瑞士法问题\n\n10. 为便于本院查阅，本文所引用瑞士法规的非官方译文作为证据2随附于后。\nA. 瑞士银行保密\n\n11. 在受托人所要求的文件包含有关与瑞士银行——如 UBS 公司——客户关系的信息的范围内，必须考虑《瑞士银行法》（“SBA”）第47(1)条。《SBA》第47条规定，违反保密义务的银行雇员和代理人将受到刑事制裁，包括监禁。相关规定如下：\n\n“1 任何人故意实施下列行为的，处三年以下监禁或相应罚金：\n\na. 以银行或根据第1b条规定之人的执行机构或监督机构成员、雇员、代表或清算人身份，或以审计事务所机构成员或雇员身份，披露受托知悉或在该身份下观察到的保密信息；\n\nb. 试图诱使他人违反职业保密义务；\n\nc. 向第三方披露保密信息，或为本人或他人利益使用该等信息。\n\n1 bis 任何人以符合第(1)(a)或(c)项规定的行为使本人或他人获利的，处五年以下监禁或相应罚金。\n\n2 任何人因过失行为的，处最高 CHF 250,000 的罚金［……］”\n\n12. 瑞士银行须对其与银行客户的关系保密。其仅可在客户放弃保密权或有管辖权的瑞士法院命令的情况下，披露影响其客户金融隐私的信息（Gunter Stratenwerth，载于：Watter/Vogt/Bauer/Winzeler 编，《Basler Kommentar Bankengesetz［瑞士银行法评注］》，第2版，2013年，SBA 第47条评注第25段及以下［“BSK-Stratenwerth”］）。\n\n13. 《SBA》第47条于1934年制定，其背景是传统上对所有个人均适用的强有力隐私权，不论其为瑞士人还是外国人，亦不论属国内还是国际情形（BSK-Stratenwerth，SBA 第47条评注第1段；联邦最高法院 BGE 137 [2011] II 431 理由第2.1.1项）。因此，《SBA》第47条并非如有时在不了解历史背景的情况下所声称的、针对美国机关的“阻断性法规”。\n\n14. 《SBA》第47条所保护的银行保密涵盖有关客户的一切信息，尤其包括银行关系本身是否存在、任何账户详情、代客户进行的交易，以及有关该等银行关系的任何文件（参见 BSK-Stratenwerth，SBA 第47条评注第13段；Jörg Schwarz，载于：Ackermann 编，《Wirtschaftsstrafrecht der Schweiz》，第2版，2021年伯尔尼，第19节第75段，第690页［“Schwarz”］）。因此，凡涉及 UBS 公司与2004取证目标可能存在的银行关系的任何信息或文件，均受《SBA》第47条保护。\n\n15. 值得注意的是，在过去十年间，议会略微扩大了该规定的适用范围，并在某些情形下提高了处罚，借此表明瑞士对保护银行保密免受个人侵犯的利益；与此同时，瑞士通过政府正式渠道促进了银行数据的披露。\n\n16. 对《SBA》第47条的任何违反均须依职权追诉，即使客户未提出任何控诉亦然（Schwarz，第19节第111段，第699页）。这表明银行客户金融隐私所依据的强有力公共政策。\n\n17. 根据瑞士法，《SBA》第47条的限制不得因外国法院命令而解除。因此，瑞士银行的雇员或代理人不得在不违反《SBA》第47条的情况下，遵从外国法院作出的、要求收集并提供受银行保密保护的文件以用于外国民事程序的命令（Schwarz，第19节第104段，第697页）。\n\n18. 在 UBS 公司的雇员或代理人协助收集和／或提供所要求文件的范围内，无论该等收集和／或提供是否系为回应外国法院命令而作出，其均将构成可处最高三年监禁的刑事犯罪。\n\n19. 在 UBS AG 的雇员或代理人要求、请求或以其他方式促使 UBS Switzerland 的雇员提供客户信息或文件的范围内，即使 UBS AG 被视为 UBS Switzerland 客户的第三方，该 UBS AG 雇员或代理人亦将依《SBA》第47条受到处罚（参见 BSK-Stratenwerth，SBA 第47条评注第16段）。\n\n20. 瑞士检察官和法院经常对违反银行保密的行为进行追诉和制裁。瑞士联邦统计局报告，平均每年约有十二宗与《SBA》有关（《SBA》第46、47、49条）的刑事定罪，但并未报告违反银行保密的单独数据。¹本人了解，平均每年有数宗根据《SBA》第47条作出的定罪。本人亲身知悉数项刑事程序及定罪。\n\n21. 在日期为 April 30, 2009、于 Southern District of Florida（佛罗里达南区）提起的、案名为 US v. UBS AG, No. 09-cv-20423 的诉讼中提交的一份法庭之友意见书中，瑞士政府表示：“自1993年以来，因违反第47条而被定罪者已有48人。”该法庭之友意见书及相关支持性声明作为证据3随附于后。一些案件为公众所知，例如，一名曾在瑞士银行工作的德国国民因向德国税务机关提供客户数据，主要违反《SBA》第47条及《SPC》第273条，被定罪并判处三年监禁（联邦刑事法院 SK.2013.26, August 22, 2013）。在类似情形下，一名前 Credit Suisse（瑞士信贷）雇员被判处两年监禁（联邦刑事法院 SK.2011.21, December 15, 2011）。Hyposwiss Privatbank AG 一名向瑞士律师披露客户信息、供该律师转交其外国客户的雇员，因主要构成试图违反《SPC》第273条（仅属未遂，因为该瑞士律师向瑞士机关报告，而非向其客户报告）及违反《SBA》第47条，被判处十五个月监禁（联邦刑事法院 SK.2013.37 December 10, 2013）。\n\n-6-\n\n¹ 为说明该数字：在瑞士，平均每年有15宗谋杀罪定罪（BSK-Schwarzenegger，《SPC》第112条评注第I节）。\n\n22. 在近期一宗联邦最高法院案件中，争议问题是，一名前银行雇员在针对该银行的劳动法院案件中提交含有未遮盖客户数据的文件时（据称仅属疏忽），是否违反银行保密。最高法院认为，即使在该等情形下——受保护信息仅向法院披露，且该法院记录并不公开——《SBA》第47条仍适用，并将案件发回下级法院，以进一步评估可能违反银行保密的事实（6B_247/2019, June 22, 2020）。\n\n23. 此外，如违反银行保密，银行及其高级雇员将因在“适当胜任经营”要求下收集或提供受银行保密保护的信息或文件，而面临 FINMA 的严重监管措施及可能制裁。对于雇员而言，该等制裁可包括取消其在受监管瑞士金融机构担任高级职位的资格。\nB. 对瑞士主权的保护（《SPC》第271条）\n\n24. 日期为 December 21, 1937 的《瑞士刑法典》（“SPC”）第271(1)条规定：\n\n“任何人未经合法授权，在瑞士境内代表外国实施属于公共机关或公职人员职责的活动，\n\n任何人为外国一方或组织实施该等活动的人，\n\n任何人便利实施该等活动的人”\n\n应处不超过三年的监禁刑或罚金；情节严重的，应处不少于一年的监禁刑。\n\n25. 如同民法法系国家的通常做法，瑞士将取证视为纯粹的司法职能。因此，法院程序中的任何取证均被视为保留给公权力机关的行为，即使该等取证由私人当事人或律师进行亦然。若该等取证是为外国程序而进行，则受SPC第271条禁止。这包括在证据开示程序中提交文件。若一方当事人须在外国程序中提交其并不持有或控制、且必须以类似于司法协助项下调查的方式从瑞士第三方处收集的文件，亦同（Markus Husmann（马克斯·胡斯曼），载于：《Basler Kommentar zum Schweizerischen Strafrecht [commentary to the Swiss Penal Code] II》，第4版，2019年[“BSK-Husmann”]，SPC第271条第49注）。\n\n26. 根据瑞士法律，公司集团中的每一家关联公司均被视为独立法人实体。在本案中，截至June 14, 2015，所有在UBS AG（瑞银集团股份公司）持有的瑞士零售、公司及财富管理银行账户均已转移至UBS Switzerland（瑞银瑞士）。因此，如有任何与2004年证据开示对象有关的账户信息，该等信息并不由UBS AG持有或控制。\n\n27. 就UBS AG可能拥有其自身与2004年证据开示对象有关的信息或文件而言，UBS AG不得依据外国法院的传票命令披露该等信息或文件，否则将违反SPC第271条，因为UBS AG将被视为代表该外国法院行事（见《民事事项国际司法协助指南》，Federal Office of Justice（联邦司法局），第3版，2003年，最后更新于January 2013，第20页及以下；可见于https :/ /www.rhf.admin.ch/rhf/ de/home/zi vilrecht/wegleitungen.html）。\n\n28. 此外，近年来，瑞士政府认为，如向外国当局提交的文件包含未经同意披露的第三方信息，则该等提交违反SPC第2 71条（BSK-Husmann，SPC第271条第45注，并引用联邦司法部和联邦财政部的决定）。因此，任何文件提交均须谨慎删节任何可能识别第三方的信息，例如2004年披露对象。\n\n29. SPC第271条案件通常由检察官和下级法院处理，因而往往不予公开。仅有少数案件会提交至高级法院。最近的一个例外是一宗涉及某资产管理公司（而非银行）董事长的案件：该董事长于2013年在DOJ（美国司法部）调查瑞士金融机构协助及教唆美国纳税人实施税务欺诈的背景下，向DOJ披露了客户数据。该董事长是在与DOJ达成不起诉协议的情况下这样做的。Federal Criminal Court（联邦刑事法院）一审出乎所有预料地判其无罪，理由是其并不知道违反SPC第271条（SK.2017.64, May 9, 2018）。Federal Supreme Court（联邦最高法院）撤销了该判决，理由是对行为刑事性质的错误认识并不妨碍处罚，尽管该等错误可以在量刑评估中予以考虑（ 6B \\_ 804/2018, December 4, 2018）。随后，该被告被联邦刑事法院正式判定有罪，但仅被处以CHF 10,000罚金而非监禁，原因是被告据称对SPC第2 71条的适用性存在错误认识（SK.2018. 71, May 2, 2019）。被告提出的上诉被联邦刑事法院上诉庭驳回（CA.2019.6, December 5, 2019）。被告就该判决提出的进一步上诉被联邦最高法院驳回（68\\_2016/2020, November 1, 2021，部分作为所谓指导性判决发表于《Decisions of the Federal Tribunal [“DFT”]》148 [2022]\n\nIV 66）2。该决定连同由下列签署人作出的非正式英文译文作为附件4附后。\n\n30. 尽管尚不完全清楚这些决定中的推理在涉及外国民事案件而非外国刑事调查（例如DOJ进行的调查）的案件中可适用至何种程度，但这些决定通常被解释为表明瑞士法院采取严格立场。\n\n31. 特别是，联邦最高法院认为：\n\n“[……]学理上普遍毫无争议的是，伴随着违反或规避瑞士或国际行政协助或司法协助法的行为，或根据行政协助和司法协助法属于瑞士机关或官员管辖范围的行为，受SPC第271条第1款规制（[……]）。瑞士一方对行政协助或司法协助的规避，并非SPC第271条第I款第3节所指的预备行为，而是SPC第271条第1款第I节所指的原始行为（[……]）。如下级法院正确指出，学理上对为外国程序收集文件并随后提交该等文件是否可受处罚，以及在何种程度上可受处罚，存在广泛讨论。本案无须详细讨论这一问题以及所有可以想见的情形。决定性的是，披露只有通过主权命令才能在瑞士合法披露的信息和文件，损害了SPC第271条所保护的法益（[……]）。在所有情形中，仅可移交能够自由处分的文件和信息。只有官方或司法协助渠道提供了一种程序载体，使保密义务与披露义务能够并列考量，并能够保障专属性原则（[……]）。不得自由处分未公开可得的有关第三方的识别信息（[……]）。”3\n\n32. 因此，被告通过规避司法协助法律交出其客户数据，违反了SPC第271条。\n\n3 DFT 148 (2022) IV 66, cons. 1.4.2.\n注：所有这些决定均可在相应法院的网站上公开获取。此外，联邦最高法院的重要判决理由历来发表于《Decisions of the Federal Tribunal》丛书，该丛书是瑞士判例法不可或缺的来源。\n\n33. 本案是少数达到联邦刑事法院和联邦最高法院层级的案件之一，但尽管开展国际业务的瑞士实体通常十分了解SPC第271条并保持谨慎，定罪仍经常发生。1976年至2017年间，因违反SPC第271条而作出的定罪共有35起（见BSK-Husmann，SPC第271条第I节）。\n\n34. 在跨境情形中，违反SPC第271条的风险受到极为严肃的对待。在我自己的执业中，我几乎每周都会就如何在外国法律程序中避免可能违反SPC第271条向客户提供建议。\n\n35. 需要指出的是，SPC第271条并非意在阻止取证，而是确保为协助外国程序而进行的取证通过瑞士法院进行，例如依据March 18, 1970《Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters》（“Hague Evidence Convention”）（该公约在瑞士、Hong Kong（香港）及United States of America（美利坚合众国）等地生效）。因此，该条保护瑞士主权。\n\nC. 经济间谍罪（SPC第273条）\n\n36. 在瑞士为供美国法院程序使用而协助取证的人，如该取证不符合《Hague Evidence Convention》规定的程序，可能因SPC第273条规定的经济间谍罪而面临刑事追诉和定罪。SPC第273条规定如下：\n\n“任何人为向外国官方机构、外国组织、私营企业或其任何代理人提供而试图获取制造秘密或商业秘密的人，或\n\n任何向外国官方机构、外国组织、私营企业或其任何代理人提供制造秘密或商业秘密的人，\n\n应处不超过三年的监禁刑或罚金；情节严重的，应处不少于一年的监禁刑。任何监禁刑可以与罚金并处。”\n\n37. SPC第273条旨在保护国家整体的公共和经济利益\n\n（BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第5注）。\n\n38. SPC第273条所称秘密，是指任何未为公众知悉或可得的事实（例如通过公开可访问的互联网），且依秘密持有人的意图应予保密，前提是该保密利益值得受到保护。此外，该秘密必须与瑞士存在联系：或者因为其影响瑞士国家利益，或者因为其秘密受到保护的私人当事人居住在瑞士（BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第12、53注）。\n\n39. 1977年，Swiss Federal Attorney General（瑞士联邦总检察长）发布了有关何种行为构成SPC第273条项下经济间谍罪的指南。关键表述如下（见BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第20注及以下）：4\n\n“1. 在披露仅限于披露人本人单独享有保密利益的信息的范围内，是否披露该等事项的决定可以留给该人。\n由下列签署人作出的非正式译文。\n\n2. 然而，根据SPC第273条，向外国实体告知下列经济情况属于被禁止且可受处罚的行为：\n\na) 存在（直接）国家保密利益的经济情况，或\n\nb) 对其保密具有值得保护利益、且此前未给予正式同意的第三方的经济情况。”\n\n40. 因此，虽然被要求提供保密信息的一方可以为SPC第273条之目的放弃其自身秘密的保密性，但在涉及瑞士第三方秘密或瑞士整体利益的范围内（即存在“瑞士联系”时），其不得如此做。是否属于该等情形取决于具体情况。特别是就银行账户而言，即使账户持有人并非瑞士人，仅瑞士银行账户的存在即足以构成必要的瑞士联系（见Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court（联邦刑事法院上诉庭）BB.2013.133 cons. 5.2, April 16, 2014；BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第56注及以下）。\n\n41. 特别是，根据瑞士联邦政府的观点，个人或实体如遵从外国传票命令或任何其他命令而披露上述秘密，且该等命令以不遵从时作出不利推定或更严重后果相威胁，即违反SPC第273条。联邦政府甚至认为，无论该等外国压力多么强烈，均不构成足以正当化违反SPC第273条的紧急状态（BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第83注）。\n\n42. 如有主管瑞士机关命令披露，即通过司法协助程序命令披露，则披露秘密不构成违法。相反，外国机关的命令不能正当化披露（见BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第78注及以下）。\n\n43. 1960年至2016年间，因违反SPC第273条而作出的定罪共有102起（见BSK-Husmann，SPC第273条第I节）。\n\nD. 司法协助\n\n44. 第47条SBA（瑞士银行法）以及第271条或第273条SPC（瑞士刑法典）均非所谓的“阻断性法规”，不会完全阻止证据的调取。\n\n45. 相反，瑞士法院可通过《海牙取证公约》的途径，下令从瑞士调取文件，包括披露关于银行客户的秘密信息，以用于外国诉讼程序（见联邦司法局，指南，前引书，第20页及以下）。\n\n46. 此类司法协助程序相当频繁。根据我参与过数起此类程序的实践经验，任何符合《海牙取证公约》的外国法院请求，均会由瑞士当局及时处理。通常，此类程序需时数周至三个月。\n\n47. 在司法协助程序中，如文件和信息系根据瑞士法院的命令提供，则瑞士关于隐私的规定以及禁止向国外提供文件的刑事法规不适用。关于银行保密，第47条SBA第(5)款明确规定：\n\n“(5) 关于提供证据义务或向主管机关提供信息义务的联邦和州级规定，不受本条规定的约束。”\n\n本人特此郑重声明，上述内容真实且正确。\n\n签署于2023年1月27日。\n\nProfessor Dr. Felix Dasser, LL.M.（菲利克斯·达瑟教授、法学博士、法学硕士）\n\n-14-\n\n官方认证\n\n兹证明下列背面签名真实：\n\nMr. Prof. Dr. iur. Felix DASSER（菲利克斯·达瑟法学教授、法学博士），出生于1958年5月3日，瑞士国籍，Thalwil und Herrliberg（塔尔维尔及赫尔利贝格）公民，据其所述居住于Rietliweg 80, 8704 Herrliberg（里特利路80号，8704赫尔利贝格），为我方所熟知。\n\n该签名由一名获授权的第三方在我方面前予以确认。\n\n本认证仅涉及签名的真实性认证，不涉及文件内容或效力。\n\nZurich（苏黎世），2023年1月27日，BK编号369，费用CHF 20.00\n\nNOTARIAT UNTERSTRASS-ZURICH（苏黎世下施特拉斯公证处）\n\nArmin Kuhn（阿尔明·库恩），公证人\n\n（1961年10月5日《海牙公约》）\n\n1. 国家：Schweizerische Eidgenossenschaft, Kanton Zurich\n瑞士联邦，苏黎世州\n\n本公文书\n\n2. 已由以下人员签署：\nArmin Kuhn（阿尔明·库恩）\n\n3. 其身份为：\n公证人\n\n4. 加盖以下机构的印章/印鉴：\nNotariat Unterstrass-Zurich, Kt Zurich（苏黎世州苏黎世下施特拉斯公证处）\n\n认证\n\n5. 于：8090 Zurich（苏黎世）\n6. 日期：2023年01月27日\n\n7. 由Staatskanzlei des Kantons Zurich（苏黎世州政府办公厅）认证\n\n8. 编号：1275835/2023\n\n10. 签名\n\n9. 印章/印鉴\n\nS. Overkott（S. 奥弗科特）","key_entities":["Kwok","Ho Wan Kwok","Despins","Je"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4465,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:44:27"}