1. What is the Karimova case about?

The story goes back almost twenty years. At its center is Gulnara Karimova, daughter of the former Uzbek president, who, according to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG), is alleged to have built a farreaching network – the socalled «Office» – that extorted bribes from telecom companies seeking access to the Uzbek market. This network is said to have been active for many years.

In 2012, the OAG opened criminal proceedings against Karimova and her business partner. They are accused of corruption, participation in a criminal organization, and money laundering.

In 2015, a former banker at the Geneva private bank Lombard Odier came under investigation. He is accused of having opened and managed bank relationships for individuals connected to the «Office» between 2008 and 2012, thereby enabling the concealment of the origin of the funds.

Lombard Odier is not accused of any active moneylaundering acts. The key question with respect to the private bank is whether it took all required organizational measures to prevent the alleged actions of its former employee. This falls under the legal concept of corporate criminal liability. Several banks in Switzerland have already been sanctioned on this basis, including Banque Pictet & Cie, Credit Suisse, and Bank J. Safra Sarasin. The bank proactively reported the case itself to the Money Laundering Reporting Office Switzerland (MROS) in 2012 and cooperated fully with the authorities throughout the proceedings.

2. Why is the case taking so long?

As complex as the underlying facts are, the course of the proceedings has been equally unusual. The length of the case is especially striking: the relevant events date back to 2008.

For the first time in Swiss criminaljustice history, the Federal Criminal Court traveled abroad to conduct hearings.

For years, the two strands of the case were conducted separately and by different prosecutors. It was only in May 2025—more than a decade after the start of the investigation—that the Federal Criminal Court decided, contrary to the OAG’s position, to merge the proceedings, since they were based on the same factual background. The trial is now scheduled for 27 April.

3. How does the process deviate from a normal proceeding?

Beyond the delays, the proceedings have been far from straightforward. The charge of participating in a criminal organization was added against Karimova and her business partner only about ten years after the investigation began.

There were also exceptional investigative steps: for the first time in Swiss criminaljustice history, the Federal Criminal Court traveled abroad to conduct hearings. In early 2026, it held questioning sessions with Karimova in Tashkent for the second time. Karimova has been imprisoned in Uzbekistan since 2014. Her detention conditions raise concerns extending beyond the specifics of the case. A UN humanrights working group classified her detention as arbitrary and identified several violations of international procedural standards. Legal experts are therefore discussing what impact this might have on the assessment and admissibility of evidence in the Swiss proceedings.

It is currently unclear whether the key defendants will appear in Bellinzona at all.

The interviews themselves were also conducted under restricted conditions: questions could only be transmitted through the Uzbek Prosecutor General’s Office and not asked directly by the Swiss judges. In addition, participants were subjected to unusual confidentiality requirements under penalty of criminal sanctions, which led defense lawyers not to attend. As a result, there are doubts as to whether these statements meet Swiss standards of evidence gathering and whether they will hold up in court.

Another uncertainty remains: it is currently unclear whether the key defendants will appear in Bellinzona at all. Because of her imprisonment, Karimova is considered unlikely to attend the trial in person. The whereabouts of her codefendant are unknown. 

This puts the court before fundamental procedural questions—for example, whether a trial in absentia can be conducted or whether parts of the case must be separated again.

4. Why is the case going to court?

Notably, cases of this kind often never reach court in Switzerland. In similar cases—including others involving people connected to Karimova—individuals were often convicted directly through penal orders issued by the OAG. This is only possible when the relevant facts are largely undisputed and the evidence is clear.

Notably, cases of this kind often never reach court in Switzerland. 

That does not appear to be the case here. The OAG is therefore bringing the matter before a court, where the allegations and the investigation to date can now be publicly reviewed. This also shifts attention to the conduct of the proceedings themselves.

5. What can be expected from the trial?

Given all of this, it is difficult to predict how the trial will unfold. Too many factors remain uncertain, and too many irregularities have accumulated over the years of investigation.

It is unclear not only who will actually appear in court, but also which pieces of evidence will ultimately be admitted and what weight they will be given. There is also the question of how the lengthy duration of the proceedings and the numerous procedural steps will influence the legal assessment.