Take-Aways (AI)
  • The decisi­ve fac­tor for qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on as an offen­se is the sta­tu­to­ry penal­ty ran­ge, not the fine actual­ly imposed.
  • The FAC dis­missed the expun­ge­ment appeal becau­se the fine of CHF 1,500 does not chan­ge the penal­ty ran­ge of an offense.
  • The total revi­si­on of the Cri­mi­nal Records Act (from 23.1.2023) pro­vi­des for a reduc­tion in fines for pro­ba­ti­on within a two-year pro­ba­ti­on period.

The BVGer had in the Judgment A‑481/2022 to judge a case in which a Cri­mi­nal record ent­ry for a vio­la­ti­on of the Ali­ens and Inte­gra­ti­on Act (AIG) was under dis­cus­sion. The com­plainant had been sen­ten­ced to a fine for vio­la­ti­on of Art. 116 AIG. Fine of CHF 1’500 (faci­li­ta­ti­on of unlawful ent­ry, exit and resi­dence). This offen­se is punis­ha­ble by impri­son­ment of up to one year or a fine, alt­hough in minor cases only a fine may be impo­sed (para. 2).

The com­plainant had unsuc­cessful­ly Dele­ti­on of the cor­re­spon­ding ent­ry from the cri­mi­nal record becau­se the fine of CHF 1,500 was below the thres­hold of CHF 5,000 at which an ent­ry is made in the case of fines pur­su­ant to Art. 3 para. 1 lit. c no. 1 of the VOSTRA Ordi­nan­ce. The FAC dis­mis­ses the appeal. Accor­ding to Art. 10 para. 3 StGB – here in con­junc­tion with. Art. 333 para. 1 – mis­de­me­an­ors are acts “punis­ha­ble by impri­son­ment for a term not exce­e­ding three years or by a fine. are threa­ten­ed”. For this qua­li­fi­ca­ti­on The decisi­ve fac­tor is not the penal­ty impo­sed, but rather the penal­ty.frame.

It is well known that this can lead to shocking results. Thus the Fede­ral Coun­cil in its respon­se to the Que­sti­on Stei­ne­mann – Ent­ry in the cri­mi­nal record and dele­ti­on peri­ods (16.1048):

It is true that the­re are con­stel­la­ti­ons whe­re the judge can only pro­no­un­ce a fine as a sanc­tion for a crime or mis­de­me­an­or. […] Fines are the­r­e­fo­re only pro­vi­ded for cri­mes or mis­de­me­an­ors whe­re the offen­der is to be “pri­vi­le­ged”. This pri­vi­le­ging should also be expres­sed in the peri­od of appear­ance in the pri­va­te extra­ct. Howe­ver, the cur­rent cri­mi­nal record regu­la­ti­on (Art. 371 StGB) does not take this fact into account, as the fol­lo­wing exam­p­le shows

If a per­son is sen­ten­ced to only a fine for a mis­de­me­an­or, the sen­tence appears 6.6 years (two-thirds of ten years) in the pri­va­te abstract.

Howe­ver, if a per­son recei­ves a con­di­tio­nal or par­ti­al­ly con­di­tio­nal sen­tence for an offen­se that is more serious in the spe­ci­fic case, the sen­tence is no lon­ger visi­ble in the pri­va­te state­ment alre­a­dy after the expi­ra­ti­on of the pro­ba­tio­na­ry peri­od of two to five years orde­red in the sen­tence, pro­vi­ded that this per­son has pro­ven hims­elf or hers­elf during the pro­ba­tio­na­ry period.

This pro­blem is fixed within the Total revi­si­on of the cri­mi­nal records law. Accor­ding to Art. 40 para. 3 lit. c of the new Cri­mi­nal Records Act applies:

Swiss basic sen­ten­ces that con­tain only a fine impo­sed for a fel­o­ny or mis­de­me­an­or no lon­ger appear in the extra­ct if the sen­ten­ced per­son has ser­ved a pro­ba­tio­na­ry peri­od of 2 years; howe­ver, they shall appear at least until the end of any expul­si­on orde­red in the basic judgment and at least until the expiry of any pro­hi­bi­ti­on of acti­vi­ty impo­sed in that judgment or later in accordance with Artic­le 67 para­graph 1 SCC or Artic­le 50 para­graph 1 MStG; the pro­ba­tio­na­ry peri­od shall com­mence when the judgment is ope­ned and pro­ba­ti­on shall exist as long as no new fel­o­ny or mis­de­me­an­or falls within the pro­ba­tio­na­ry period.

The Cri­mi­nal Records Act valid from 23 Janu­ary 2023. Against this back­ground, the FAC did not see any gap that could have been clo­sed in favor of the com­plainant by inter­pre­ting the StGB or the VOSTRA Ordi­nan­ce accordingly.