Source: https://iclg.com/practice-areas/business-crime-laws-and-regulations/liechtenstein
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 06:49:23+00:00

Document:
the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU).
The Prosecutor’s Office is the main enforcement agency for the pre-trial investigation as well as to the trial itself. In this capacity, it is authorised to file petitions and indictments with the criminal courts as well as appeals against orders and judgments issued by the same.
The Office for Business Crimes at the Police Department serves to assist the Prosecutor’s Office, as well as the criminal courts during the pre-trial investigation.
The FMA is, among others, in charge of monitoring and supervising the different groups of financial intermediaries, being banks, funds of different kind, insurance companies, trustees, asset administrators, auditors and law firms. In case of irregularities, it is obliged to conduct investigations to a certain extent itself and to file a criminal complaint at the Prosecutor’s Office.
The FIU is in charge of accepting notifications of financial intermediaries according to the Law on Due Diligence (anti-money laundering) and to forward the same to the Prosecutor’s Office, if indicated.
The civil enforcement of business crimes falls within the deliberate decision of the person or company harmed by the respective activities. They have to file the appropriate claims, for example, indemnification claims or those for undue enrichment, against the liable person or company at the civil court. Any criminal offence resulting in damage is likely to result in a civil claim too, while a civil claim does not need to be based on a convicting judgment at a trial.
The administrative enforcement falls within the authority of the FMA.
There have been several major business crime cases in the past few years. Part of the cases are closely entangled with major cases in foreign jurisdictions if the funds gained by criminal activities there had been hidden in Liechtenstein.
The Criminal Court in major cases – these are cases which are punishable with imprisonment of up to more than three years – as well as the Court of Appeal, are composed of three judges. The Supreme Court is composed of five judges.
A jury system is not known to the Liechtenstein criminal courts.
Any person who by deceiving another person about facts causes such other person to do, acquiesce in, or omit an act that causes damage to the assets of such other person or of a third person and who has the intent to unjustly enrich himself or a third party as a result of the conduct of the deceived person shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
falsely posing as an official shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years.
2) Any person shall be punished likewise who commits fraud causing damage in an amount exceeding CHF 5,000.
3) Any person who, as a result of the act, causes damage in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of between one and 10 years.
Any person who commits fraud on a commercial basis shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years; but any person who commits serious fraud with the purpose of obtaining regular income by repeatedly committing the act shall be punished with imprisonment of one to 10 years.
Any fraud in connection with accounting is also covered by the general rules on fraud as set out above.
making such information available to a third party without being obliged to do so.
2) Anyone who is not an insider using inside information that was disclosed to him or that he otherwise gained knowledge of with the intent to obtain an economic advantage for himself or a third party in a way described in par.1, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year or a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates, however, in case the economic advantage obtained through the offence exceeds CHF 75,000, with imprisonment of up to three years.
3) Anyone who otherwise is an insider or not an insider and who uses information, of which he knows or gross negligently does not know that it is inside information, in a way described in par.1 but without the intent to obtain an economic advantage for himself or a third party, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
4) An insider shall mean a person who by virtue of his membership of the administrative, management, or supervisory bodies of the issuer or otherwise due to his profession, occupation, his responsibilities, or his interest in the capital of the issuer has access to inside information. An insider further means a person who has obtained the information by committing offences. In case the person is a legal person, any natural person who takes part in the decision to execute the transaction for the account of the legal person shall be considered an insider.
dealing in own shares (purchase and sale) in the context of buy-back programmes and price stabilisation measures for a financial instrument, if such transactions are conducted in compliance with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2273/2003 of 22 December 2003 implementing Directive 2003/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (EEA Compendium of Laws: Annex IX–29aa.01).
c) disseminates information via the media including the internet or through other channels that send or could send false or misleading signals with respect to the financial instruments, among other things, by disseminating rumours and false or misleading news if the person who disseminated this information knew or should have known that the information was false or misleading. Journalists who disseminate such information in the line of duty shall be judged by the standards applicable to their profession unless these persons gain an advantage or a pecuniary benefit directly or indirectly from the dissemination of the respective information.
2) Par.1(a) shall not apply if the action conforms to accepted market practices in the supervised market concerned or with respect to the off-market trade concerned and the person has legitimate reasons for the action. Accepted market practices are only such practices that one may reasonably expect to find on one or more financial markets and are recognised by the FMA as such. A market practice, especially a new or emerging market practice, shall not be considered unacceptable on the grounds that it was not expressly accepted previously.
3) Par.1 shall not apply to dealing in own shares (purchase and sale) in the context of buy-back programmes and price stabilisation measures for a financial instrument, if such transactions are conducted in compliance with Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2273/2003.
the consultation procedure and the announcement of the decision concerning acceptance of a market practice and the factors to be taken into account when judging a market practice.
Any person who, with the intent to unjustly enrich himself or a third party, appropriates for himself or for a third party any good that has been entrusted to him shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
Any person who embezzles a good, the value of which exceeds the amount of CHF 5,000, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years, and any person who embezzles a good, the value of which exceeds the amount of CHF 75,000, shall be punished with imprisonment of between one and 10 years.
Any person who offers, promises, or provides to an office holder or arbitrator a benefit to be granted to such office holder or arbitrator or to a third party in return for any execution or omission of official duties in violation of such duties shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years. Any person shall be punished likewise who offers, promises, or provides to an expert (§ 304 par.1) a benefit for such expert or a third party in return for the provision of a false finding or a false opinion.
Any person who commits the act in relation to a benefit value exceeding CHF 5,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years; any person who commits the act in relation to a benefit value exceeding CHF 75,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of between one and 10 years.
An official who, with the intent to injure another person with respect to such other person’s rights, knowingly abuses his powers to carry out official duties in the name of the state, a municipal association, a municipality, or another person under public law as a body thereof in the execution of the laws shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
Any person who commits the act while carrying out official duties with a foreign power or a supranational or intergovernmental institution shall be punished with imprisonment of between one and 10 years.
Criminal anti-competition is not regulated within the Criminal Code itself. It is part of the Law on Unfair Competition (UWG) which is dealing with civil, procedural, administrative and criminal aspects of the same.
are punishable with a fine up to CHF 100,000. This due to a petition by a person authorised to file a civil claim. In case of negligence, the fine is limited to CHF 50,000.
Minor irregularities in relation to the obligation to inform consumers of the price can be charged with the fine up to CHF 20,000 and in case of negligence up to CHF 10,000 (Art.23 UWG).
Art.25 UWG establishes a specific kind of entity liability for the purpose of unfair competition as it expressly rules that the company is subject to joint and several liabilities.
Liechtenstein does not have an antitrust-law with a specification of criminal offences to have its rules observed. The same is also due for the Criminal Code. However, it should be mentioned that Liechtenstein, as a Member State of the European Economic Area (EEA), is subject to Part 4 Chapter 1 of the EEA Agreement dealing under the heading ‘Competition and other Common Rules’, ‘Rules for Undertakings’ with illegal concerted practices falling under the surveillance of the EU commission and the EFTA Surveillance Authority (Art.53 to 60 EEAA).
Two main types of criminal offences in relation to taxes are known in Liechtenstein: tax evasion and tax fraud.
as a tax payer or as a person liable to deduct tax and source, wilfully or through negligence, obtains a full refund or an unjustified abatement.
2) The fine will be equivalent to the amount of the tax or charge evaded. It may be reduced up to ⅔ in the event of a minor fault and increased up to the threefold in the case of a major one.
In relation to tax evasion, the attempt, as well as the assistance of a third party, be it by inducement, be it by contribution, results in a criminal offence also (Art.138 and 139 SteG).
Any person who evades taxes by using false or falsified business accounts with untrue content or other documents shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a financial penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
Any person liable to deduct tax at source who uses the same for his own benefit or the one of another shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or a financial penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
A specific regulation for entity liability is known for tax crimes (Art.143 SteG). In case of a tax evasion and assistance thereto the entity is supposed to be punished itself while the representatives acting for the same are only liable if the fine cannot be paid by the entity. In case of a tax fraud and misappropriation of tax in relation to legal entities, the members of the governing body shall be punished.
Any fraud in relation to government-contracting is covered by the general rules on fraud as set out above under the heading securities fraud.
shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years.
2) If the act causes significant damage to the animal or plant populations, entails a deterioration of the water, soil or air conditions for an extended period of time, or causes removal costs or other damage to an object belonging to another person, to a cultural property under protection as defined by the Cultural Property Act, or to a natural monument in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years. If the act entails any of the consequences referred to in § 169 par.3, the penalties provided for therein shall be imposed.
shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) If the act causes significant damage to the animal or plant populations, entails a deterioration of the water, soil or air conditions for an extended period of time, or causes removal costs in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years. If the act entails any of the consequences referred to in § 169 par.3, the penalties provided for therein shall be imposed.
3) Any person who, with the exception of the case set out in para.2, ships waste in a significant quantity in violation of Art. 2 par.35 of the Regulation (EC) no. 1013/2006 on shipments of waste shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) If the act causes significant damage to animal or plant populations, entails a deterioration of the water, soil or air conditions for an extended period of time, or causes removal costs in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000, the perpetrator shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates. If the act entails any of the consequences referred to in § 169 par. 3, the penalties provided for therein shall be imposed.
2) Any person shall be punished likewise who, in violation of a legal provision or an official mandate, causes significant danger to animal or plant populations in a manner other than the manner set out in § 180.
The criminal offences done on intention as set forth above know counterparts in case where they are committed in negligence as more closely set forth in §§ 181, 181b, 181d and 183 StGB.
The regulations set forth in the Criminal Code in relation to offences at elections and votes do not deal with campaign-financing. However, activities in relation thereto might qualify as active bribery or abuse of official powers as discussed above under the heading ‘Bribery of government officials’.
For market manipulation in connection with the sale of derivatives the same applies for what is said above under the heading ‘Securities fraud’.
1) Any person who hides asset components originating from a crime, a misdemeanour in accordance with § 223, § 224, § 278, Arts 83 to 85 of the Foreigners Act, a misdemeanour in accordance with the Narcotics Act, a misdemeanour in accordance with Art.140 of the Tax Act, a misdemeanour in accordance with Art.88 or 89 of the Value Added Tax Act, or an infraction under Art.24 of the Market Abuse Act, or conceals their origin, in particular by providing false information in legal transactions concerning the origin or the true nature of, the ownership or other rights pertaining to, the powers of disposal over, the transfer of, or the location of such asset components, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) Any person who appropriates or takes into safekeeping asset components originating from a crime, a misdemeanour in accordance with § 223, § 224, § 278, § 278d or § 304 to § 309, a misdemeanour in accordance with Arts 83 to 85 of the Foreigners Act, a misdemeanour in accordance with the Narcotics Act, a misdemeanour in accordance with Art.88 or 89 of the Value Added Tax Act, or an infraction in accordance with Art.24 of the Market Abuse Act, or any person who knowingly appropriates or takes into safekeeping asset components originating from a misdemeanour under Art.140 of the Tax Act, whether merely in order to hold such components in safekeeping, to invest them, or to manage them, or who converts, realises, or transfers such asset components to a third party, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
3) Any person who commits the act referred to in paragraphs 1 or 2 in relation to a value exceeding CHF 75,000 or as a member of a criminal group that has joined together for the purpose of continued money laundering shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
4) An asset component shall be deemed to arise from an offence if the perpetrator of the offence has obtained the asset component through the act or received it for the commission of the act or if the value of the originally obtained or received asset is embodied therein.
6) Any person who appropriates or takes into safekeeping asset components of a criminal organisation (§ 278a) or a terrorist group (§ 278b) on behalf of or in the interest of such a criminal organisation or terrorist group, whether merely in order to hold such components in safekeeping, to invest them, or to manage them, or who converts, realises, or transfers such asset components to a third party, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years; any person who commits the act in relation to a value exceeding CHF 75,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
A criminal offence called wire fraud is not known to Liechtenstein law. The relevant acts will normally qualify as fraud according to the general rules set forth above under the heading securities fraud.
1) Any person who causes damage to another by changing, deleting, or otherwise making unusable or suppressing data that is processed, transmitted, or supplied with the help of automation and that is not at his disposal or not at his sole disposal shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) Any person who through the act causes damage to the data in an amount exceeding CHF 5,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates. Any person who causes damage in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000 or commits the act as a member of a criminal group shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
1) Any person who seriously interferes with the functioning of a computer system that is not at his disposal or not at his sole disposal by entering or transmitting data shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates, if the act does not carry a penalty pursuant to § 126a.
2) Any person who through the act brings about interference with the functioning of a computer system that persists for an extended period of time shall be punished with imprisonment of up to two years or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates; any person who commits the act as a member of a criminal group shall be punished with imprisonment of six months to five years.
shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) No person shall be punished in accordance with paragraph 1 if such person voluntarily prevents that the computer program or comparable device referred to in paragraph 1 or the password, access code, any data comparable thereto be used in any of the manners set out in § 118a, § 119, § 119a, § 126a, § 126b or § 148a. If there is no danger of any such use or if such danger has been eliminated without any contribution by the perpetrator, the perpetrator shall not be punished if, not having any knowledge thereof, he voluntarily and earnestly endeavours to eliminate such danger.
Anyone who wilfully violates any provision of an ordinance referred to in Art.2 par.2, provided such violation is declared to be punishable, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years or to a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily penalty units.
In the event that the violation is committed by negligence, the maximum penalty shall be reduced by half.
violating any provision of an ordinance referred to in Art.2 par.2, provided such contravention is declared to be punishable, or violating any decree issued with reference to the liability to penalties under this article, where the act is not considered a culpable conduct in accordance with any other offence.
2) In the event that the violation is committed by negligence, the maximum penalty shall be reduced by half.
3) The period of limitation for the contraventions set out in par.1 is five years.
Also in relation thereto, a kind of entity liability is known as in case the offences are committed in business operations of a legal person or partnership the same are joint and several liable for financial penalties and cases (Art.12 ISG).
1) Any person who knowingly abuses the authorisation granted to him by law, official mandate or legal transaction to make dispositions in respect of assets belonging to another person or to bind such other person and thereby inflicts a pecuniary disadvantage on such other person shall be punished with imprisonment of up to six months or with a monetary penalty of up to 360 daily rates.
2) Any person who through the act causes damage in an amount exceeding CHF 5,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of up to three years. Any person who through the act causes damage in an amount exceeding CHF 75,000 shall be punished with imprisonment of one year up to 10 years.
Furthermore, there are specific rules of criminal offences set forth among others in the Law on Due Diligence, the Bank Act, the Law on Investment Enterprises and the Law on Trustees. These specific rules serve to enforce the careful observation of the professional rules, for example, the ones including the respective necessity to have a licence. Parts of those regulations also know a specific kind of entity liability.
The penalties provided for intentional acts will not only apply to a completed act, but also to an attempt and to any participation in an attempt.
The act will be deemed attempted as soon as the perpetrator puts his decision to carry out or direct another person (§ 12) to carry out the act into execution by way of an action immediately preceding the carrying out of the act.
An attempt and any participation in an attempt will not be punishable if completion of the act was not possible under any circumstances, for lack of personal qualities or circumstances that the law requires the person acting to fulfil or given the type of the action or the type of the object against which the act was perpetrated.
foundations and associations not entered in the commercial register as well as foundations and associations which neither have their domicile nor a place of operation or establishment in Liechtenstein.
otherwise exerts significant influence over the business management of the legal person.
3) Where the underlying acts have been committed by employees of the legal person, even though not culpably, the legal person shall be liable only if the commission of the act was made possible or was significantly facilitated by the failure of managing staff, as defined by paragraph 3, to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such underlying acts.
4) The liability of the legal person for the underlying act and the criminal liability of the managing staff or employees for the same act shall not be exclusive of each other.
Specific rules on entity liability are set forth in the Tax Act, Law on Unfair Competition and International Sanctions Act. The relevant rules had been discussed above under the heading ‘Tax crimes’, ‘Criminal anti-competition’ and ‘Trade sanctions and export control violence’.
A personal liability for managers, officers and directors is not oblivious if the entity becomes liable for a crime (see § 74a par.5 StGB as stated above).
As § 74a par.5 StGB states expressly that the liability of the entity shall not be exclusive to the one of the managing staff or employees, a policy or preference as to when to pursue an entity or an individual or both is not indicated by the Criminal Code itself. Furthermore, attention should be paid to the different treaties ratified by Liechtenstein and entailing the enactment of entity liability expressly state that the same is of original nature and complementary to the personal liability of the perpetrator (see the respective Report and Petition of the Government during the legislation process no.2010/52).
Where the rights and obligations of the legal person are transferred to another legal person by way of universal succession, the legal consequences provided for under this Act or the Code of Criminal Procedure shall apply to the legal successor. Legal consequences imposed on the legal predecessor shall have effect also for the legal successor.
Singular succession shall be deemed equivalent to universal succession if essentially the same ownership situation with regard to the legal person exists and the operation or activity is continued.
Where more than one legal successor exists, the corporate monetary penalty may be enforced against any legal successor. Other legal consequences may be attributed to individual legal successors to the extent that those legal consequences affect their area of activity.
In a case of an acquisition, the Criminal Code stays silent. However, there cannot be any doubt that the change in control has no impact on the entity liability as the identity of the same is not affected.
However, it seems legitimate to argue in such a situation of a merger or acquisition that the same will have a favourable impact on the future conduct of the legal person, especially if the consequences of the act had been or will be rectified, which is, according to § 74b StGB, supposed to be taken into account by the court when assessing the penalty.
The limitations period (other than those for a criminal offence punishable with life imprisonment or 10 to 20 years, which is not the case for the one discussed in section 3 above) is calculated from the date when the activity carrying a penalty has been completed or the conduct carrying a penalty has ceased (§ 57 par.2 StGB).
If the perpetrator commits a criminal offence of the same harmful inclination during the limitations period, the same shall not end until it had also expired for the new offence (see § 58 par.2 StGB in question 5.3 below).
1) If a result belonging to the elements of an offence occurs only after the activity carrying a penalty has been completed or if the conduct carrying a penalty has ceased, then the limitations period shall not come to an end either before it has also elapsed since the result came to pass or one and a half times its duration, but at least three years have passed since the point in time referred to in § 57 paragraph 2.
2) If, during the limitations period, the perpetrator again commits an act carrying a penalty that arises from the same harmful inclination, the limitations period shall not end until the limitations period has expired also for that act.
(of no interest for crimes under section 3 above).
4) If the act is prosecuted only upon demand, on application, or with the authorisation of a person entitled to grant authorisation, then the limitations period shall not be suspended because the prosecution is not demanded or applied for or the authorisation has not been given.
the perpetrator was a foreign national at the time of the act, is caught in Liechtenstein, and cannot be extradited abroad for reasons other than the type or nature of his act.
2) The penalty shall be determined in such a manner that the perpetrator is not treated less favourably in the overall effect than under the law of the place where the act is committed.
3) If there is no penal power at the place where the act is committed, it shall suffice if the act is punishable under Liechtenstein laws.
for as long as the enforcement of the sentence imposed by the foreign court is stayed in whole or in part.
5) Preventive measures provided for under Liechtenstein laws shall, if the conditions therefor apply, be ordered against a Liechtenstein citizen even if he cannot be punished in Liechtenstein for any of the reasons set out in the preceding paragraph.
Investigations are initiated either due to the knowledge of the Prosecutor’s Office and the Criminal Court themselves or a criminal complaint filed with the Prosecutor’s Office, among others by the Financial Market Authority and the Financial Intelligence Unit.
European Treaty on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Cases dated April 20, 1959 (January 26, 1970).
Agreement on Money Laundering as well as Investigations, Seizure and Confiscation of Profits of Criminal Acts dated November 8, 1990 (March 1, 2001).
Agreement of the United Nations against Border Crossing Organized Crimes dated November 15, 2000 (March 21, 2008).
Agreement on Cybercrime dated November 23, 2001 (May 1, 2016).
Treaty between Liechtenstein and the United States of America on the international assistance in criminal cases dated July 8, 2002 (August 1, 2003).
Agreement on Criminal Law against Corruption dated January 27, 1999 plus the supplementary Protocol thereto dated May 15, 2003 (April 1, 2017).
Treaty between Liechtenstein and the United States of America on a more thorough Cooperation for the Hindrance and Prosecution of Major Criminal Offences dated June 27, 2012 (March 9, 2018).
Agreement on Mutual Assistance in Tax Cases dated January 25, 1988 (December 1, 2016).
Agreement between Liechtenstein and the United States of America on FATCA dated May 16, 2014 (January 22, 2015).
Mutual Agreement of the Exchange of Information concerning Financial Accounts dated October 29, 2014 (December 1, 2016).
Based on reasonable suspicions that documents relevant for the investigation may be seized due to a court order. Until the order has become legally valid, the documents seized are sealed on petition for later investigation.
Liechtenstein law knows the attorney-client privilege, whereas qualifying documents are exempt from seizure. The seizure may not be circumvented by having the attorney or his employees interrogated as witness.
In-house attorneys as well as the corporate communication with them do not qualify as privileged.
There are no specific rules granting any privileges to employees, whereas the same are subject to the ordinary rules dealing with the production of documents and interrogation.
Company employees do not qualify as privileged, whereas they are under the obligation to produce documents in their possession which may be seized. Their homes and offices may be raided.
Here applies the same of what is said in relation to the company employees under question 7.5 above.
It falls within the authority of the Criminal Court to summon suspects and witnesses under subpoena for interrogation either by the court itself or on demand of the court by the Police Department. Employees, officers and directors of a company are either dealt with as suspects or witnesses.
Hereto see what is said under question 7.7 above.
A person questioned as a suspect has the privilege against self-incrimination. It is not supposed that the assertion is held against the suspect at trial as a tacit acknowledgment of guilt. However, the borderline is delicate and depends on the specific case at hand.
Pre-trial investigations are initiated by the court either on its own knowledge or due to a petition of the Prosecutor’s Office a criminal complaint filed. The trial itself is initiated due to an indictment normally brought by the Prosecutor’s Office or in a supplementary manner by a person who has joined the criminal procedure as a civil claimant [§ 32 par.4 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure)].
The rule of law as set forth under basic considerations in the Constitution and in a more specified manner in the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure form the guideline to decide whether an entity or individual is charged with a crime. While rather vague suspicions are sufficient to start pre-trial investigations, only those sustained by evidence gathered shall lead to an indictment.
The Liechtenstein law knows the possibility of a diversion as set forth in § 22a to § 22m StPO.
A diversion is dependent on if the criminal offence, as far as discussed under section 3 above, qualifies as misdemeanour only, i.e. a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment of up to three years, and the culpability of the suspect may not be considered as grave.
Deferred prosecutions or non-prosecution agreements are not available in Liechtenstein.
A judicial approval for a diversion according to question 8.3 above is only necessary if the criminal procedure had been entered the stage of trial, i.e. once an indictment had been filed.
Civil penalties in addition to or instead of criminal dispositions to an investigation are not known to Liechtenstein law.
The civil claims resulting from a criminal offence have to be pursued by the person or entity harmed either by joining the criminal procedure itself or by filing the respective claims with the civil court. Normally, the criminal court will abstain from issuing a civil award (apart from very simple cases) and refer the claimant to the civil court.
The ordinary burden of proof is vested with the prosecutor. For an affirmative defence the same has to be borne by the defendant.
The standard of proof is only met if all factual and intentional elements of the criminal offence have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.
As a jury trial is not known in Liechtenstein, the judges are the arbiters of fact.
According to § 12 StGB, not only the immediate perpetrator shall be deemed to commit the offence, but also every person who directs another person to carry out the offence or who otherwise contributes to it being carried out.
The defence of not having committed a crime due to a lack of intent is available where the respective offence is only punishable if done on intent. Most of the offences discussed under section 3 above require intent of the perpetrator. The burden of proof has to be borne by the prosecutor as it is the case with all other elements of a criminal offence.
If the defendant did not recognise the wrongfulness of the act due to a mistake of law, he shall not be deemed to act culpable if he cannot be blamed for the mistake itself. The latter is the case if the mistake was easily recognisable or he did not acquaint himself with the relevant provisions; even so he would have been obliged to do so in like of his profession, occupation or other circumstances. The burden of proof for the mistake of law lies with the offender (§ 9 StGB).
If the defendant was ignorant of the facts he did normally not act with criminal intent, whereas he is in principle not culpable if the offence can be committed on intent only. However, if the criminal offence can be committed by negligence also, this defence is not available. A person is negligent if he fails to exercise the care that is required of him under the circumstances and that he is capable of it due to his condition and that it can be reasonably expected (§ 6 StGB).
There is no general public obligation to report crimes of which a person or entity has become aware.
However, specific obligations arise under Art.1 par.1 Law on Due Diligence (anti-money laundering regulations) which applies to financial intermediaries of any kind (among others banks, asset management companies, trustees) to notify the Financial Intelligence Unit of any suspicions concerning money laundering or a qualified offence preceding money laundering, organised crime or financing of terrorist activities.
tracing a person who has been involved in such a conspiracy in a leading capacity or has been active in such a group or organisation in a leading capacity.
A sentence below the legal minimum penalty may be imposed within the limits set by § 41, if this corresponds to the significance of the disclosed facts in proportion to the culpability of the perpetrator. § 41 par.3 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
2) Par.1 shall also apply to a perpetrator whose knowledge relates to punishable acts not governed by the criminal laws of Liechtenstein, provided that the provision of legal assistance would be permissible.
A defendant seeking leniency is well advised to cooperate with the court and Prosecutor’s Office. Such cooperation might pave the way for a lenient judgment within the frame of the possible penalties.
The Liechtenstein Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) does not know any rules on plea bargaining. However, it can always be given a try to discuss with the Prosecutor’s Office and the Criminal Court on what impact a decline to contest a criminal charge might have.
According to what is said in question 14.1 above, there are no rules available.
The imposition of a sentence has to stay within the frame of penalties stated for the specific criminal offence. The penalty has to reflect the culpability of the perpetrator. In addition thereto, the court has to weigh the aggravating and mitigating causes to the extent they do not already determine the penalty itself. Furthermore, the facts of the penalty have to be taken into account, to what extent the act is due to a negative or indifferent attitude of the perpetrator toward legally protected values and to what extent it is due to external circumstances or motives that also prompt a person committed to the legally protected value to commit a crime. Certain aggravating and mitigating causes are expressly stated in § 33 and § 34 StGB.
A sentence on a corporation always results in the payment of a fine up to 180 daily rates between CHF 100 and 15,000 each. The number of daily rates shall be determined in accordance with the seriousness and consequences of the underlying act and the seriousness of the lack of organisation. Additionally, the conduct of the corporation after the act shall be taken into account, especially whether it has rectified its consequences.
A guilty or non-guilty verdict may be appealed, respectively, either by the defendant or the government. Verdicts of either kind may be appealed to the extent the appellant is aggrieved by the same.
What is said under question 16.1 above is also applicable on the criminal sentence itself.
The appellate court has to review the judgment within the petitions set forth in the appeal. An appeal may be based on the wrong finding of facts, procedural flaws and questions of law on which the guilty verdict is based. In addition thereto, the sentence itself may be challenged as inappropriate.
The Court of Appeal has two possibilities. First, to lift the judgment and refer it for readjudication to the Criminal Court of first instance. This will normally be done if supplementary evidence has to be taken. Second, to issue a new verdict and/or sentence on the facts established.
It is worthwhile mentioning that a judgment of the Court of Appeal may be appealed itself to the Supreme Court based on the wrong finding of facts, procedural flaws and questions of law. Also the sentence maybe challenged by doing so (§ 234 StPO). However, such an appeal is only possible if the sentence exceeds a term of imprisonment of one year (§235 StPO).

References: Art.25
 § 169
 § 169
 Art. 2
 § 169
 § 180
 § 223
 § 224
 § 278
 Art.140
 Art.88
 Art.24
 § 223
 § 224
 § 278
 § 278
 § 304
 § 309
 Art.88
 Art.24
 Art.140
 § 126
 § 118
 § 119
 § 119
 § 126
 § 126
 § 148
 Art.2
 Art.2
 § 74
 § 74
 § 74
 § 58
 § 57
 § 22
 § 22
 § 12
 Art.1
 § 41
 § 41
 § 33
 § 34