the Court of Cassation rules this Wednesday in the emblematic UBS case

Will the UBS affair reach its end or, on the contrary, a new legal twist? The Court of Cassation, which does not judge the merits of disputes but verifies compliance with the rules of law, must rule this Wednesday in Paris on the appeal filed by the Swiss banking giant, against its conviction in 2021 for a total of 1.8 billion euros for aggravated money laundering, tax fraud and illegal bank canvassing. The examination of this appeal took place on September 27 and the decision will therefore be rendered this Wednesday.

Record fine

The first Swiss bank, which has always contested any infringement, was found guilty twice of having illegally approached wealthy French taxpayers in order to convince them to open undeclared accounts in Switzerland between 2004 and 2012. The first judgment instance, on February 20, 2019, broke all records: a fine of 3.7 billion euros, to which was added 800 million in damages for the French state.

The judgment “was an important warning shot addressed to financial circles” but it was “quickly attenuated by the decision of the Court of Cassation of September 11, 2019”, tempers a specialized magistrate.

That day, the high court decided how the maximum fine for laundering tax fraud should be calculated: it can reach either 3.75 million for a legal entity, or half of the tax evaded – and not half of the funds hidden, a big difference. For UBS, the Paris Court of Appeal drew the consequences on December 13, 2021. Judging that it could not quantify the evaded tax, it imposed a fine of 3.75 million and a confiscation of one billion , with the same 800 million in damages for the State. In total: 1.8 billion euros, which remains a record.

Towards a third trial?

This Wednesday, the Court of Cassation may consider that this judgment is consistent with French law, or overturn it and therefore refer the case to the court of appeal.

Before the highest court of the judiciary, UBS contests its guilt, the legality of the confiscation and the motivations justifying compensation from the State. The Advocate General recommended cassation, but only on penalties and damages: if the Court followed this opinion, it could order a third trial. The issue of the decision is the “overall proportionality of the sanction” and the compensation granted to the State, believes the specialized magistrate.