The defendant was the business manager of two hotels and three bars in which many women coming from other countries worked for him as prostitutes. The victims included women from Latvia and the Czech Republic, including one minor aged 15 or less.
The defendant held the women in these premises and restricted their freedom by using various measures. This case confirms the established interpretation by the Swiss Federal Court of the elements of trafficking in persons under Article 1 as well as former Article a 1 Penal Code Switzerland. Specifically, it confirms the principle that any recruitment of foreign women from countries in which they face economic or social hardships for the purpose of prostitution in Switzerland amounts to exploitation of a situation of vulnerability and voids any consent by the victims to engage in prostitution.
The Court also examined the amendments made to former Article a in and the difference and commonalities between the former offence and the current Article 1 Penal Code. The District Court convicted the defendant, known as X, on charges relating to sexual acts with a child, facilitating prostitution, trafficking in persons, exploitation of a situation of vulnerability, as well as various charges relating to fraud and violations of Swiss foreigners laws.
Following an appeal by X, the Cantonal Court in Bern acquitted the defendant of the charges relating to fraud and falsification of documents. The Court confirmed the conviction for trafficking in persons, but reduced the sentence to four years imprisonment taking into account any time spend in remand and time already served and a fine of CHF 5, approximately USD 5, In the appeal to the Federal Court Bundesgericht in Lausanne, X sought an acquittal for charges relating to trafficking in persons and a reduction of the sentence.
The Federal Court quashed the appeal against conviction and sentence. In Article 2 2 of the Penal Code, Swiss law provided that the new, amended offences is to be applied if the new offence is more advantageous for the defendant, relative to the previous offence it replaced. The appellant, X, argued that, based on the codified rule in Article 2 2 , he should have been convicted under Article 1 and that the Cantonal and District Courts erred in applying former Article a which was the relevant offence at the time the crime was committed.
