Coordinated international criminal defense between Switzerland, Spain, and the countries of origin of the funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Dr. Alan Aldana<\/strong> Madrid \u00b7 Caracas \u00b7 Alliances in Geneva, Zurich, and 15 Jurisdictions Extradition requests made by the Swiss Confederation to the Kingdom of Spain constitute a growing phenomenon in contemporary international criminal cooperation. In the vast majority of cases, these requests are based on economic crimes, particularly money laundering, and share a common denominator that determines the defense strategy: the funds allegedly laundered in Switzerland originate from a third country, where the so-called predicate or antecedent offense was allegedly committed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This pattern is especially relevant when the country of origin of the funds is Venezuela, Colombia, Mexico, or another Latin American jurisdiction where the subject may have open criminal cases, ongoing investigations, or, conversely, strong arguments to demonstrate the legality of the origin of their assets.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For someone detained in Spain due to a Swiss request, understanding this scenario and acting precisely from the initial hours is crucial. The defense cannot be limited to Spanish territory. It must be dual: operating simultaneously in Spain, Switzerland, and the country of origin of the funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This article analyzes the applicable legal framework, effective defense strategies, and operational capacity of VENFORT Abogados to coordinate transnational defenses in these types of proceedings.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Contrary to what might be assumed, Spain and Switzerland are not linked by a modern bilateral extradition treaty. The extradition relationship is governed by a multiple and strategically complex legal framework:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The primary instrument is the European Convention on Extradition, signed in Paris on December 13, 1957, and ratified by both Spain and Switzerland. Spain ratified it on April 21, 1982, and it was published in the Official State Gazette (BOE) on June 8, 1982. This Convention is supplemented by three Additional Protocols (1975, 1978, and 2010), all of which have been ratified by both States.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Convention establishes the classic principles of extradition: dual criminality, specialty, prohibition of extradition for political offenses, protection against prescription, and due process guarantees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore, there remains an old bilateral treaty signed in Bern on August 31, 1883, one of the oldest that Spain still has. Although its practical application has been largely superseded by the European Convention of 1957, its existence may be relevant in debates regarding the catalog of extraditable offenses and the historical interpretation of bilateral obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Switzerland, although not a member of the European Union, has been associated with the Schengen acquis since 2008. This implies the applicability of the 1996 Extradition Convention, established on the basis of Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union, which simplifies certain procedures and modifies rules on statutes of limitation. The National High Court has confirmed this applicability in recent rulings, which has direct consequences for the defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n By way of supplement, Law 4\/1985, of March 21, on Passive Extradition, is always applicable regarding the procedural guarantees of the claimant, grounds for denial, and the procedure before the National High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Experience shows that the vast majority of Swiss extradition requests processed in Spain are based on the crime of money laundering (Geldw\u00e4scherei, Article 305bis of the Swiss Penal Code). And it is precisely in this type of offense that the greatest vulnerabilities of the request are concentrated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As established by Article 301 of the Spanish Penal Code, the punishment for money laundering requires the existence of a prior criminal activity from which the allegedly laundered assets originate. One cannot launder that which was never illicit. And the jurisprudence of the Second Chamber of the Spanish Supreme Court has reiterated that, although a final conviction for the predicate offense is not required, its existence must be proven with a reasonable standard of evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, this evidentiary deficit is the most vulnerable point of an extradition request and the central axis of an effective defense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The competency to resolve extradition requests in Spain corresponds to the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court. The procedure is initiated before the Central Investigating Court, which carries out the initial proceedings and holds the hearing of the requested person, and subsequently forwards the file to the Chamber, which resolves by order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In cases of extradition requested by Switzerland for money laundering, the most effective lines of defense are as follows:<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the Swiss request does not clearly identify the predicate offense from which the allegedly laundered funds originated, the defense may argue that an essential element of the crime is missing. The Audiencia Nacional, in its Ruling 120\/2002, already established that for dual criminality in money laundering cases, it is necessary for the conduct that forms the basis of the prior act to be associated with a criminal sanction in the abstract in both countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If the facts that allegedly generated the funds occurred in a third country and it is not proven that they constitute a crime in that country or in Spain, the basis for extradition is substantially weakened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The principle of dual criminality requires that the acts constitute an offense in both Switzerland and Spain. The Falciani case is paradigmatic: the Audiencia Nacional denied extradition to Switzerland on two occasions (2013 and 2018) after finding that the offense of aggravated financial espionage, as defined in Swiss legislation, had no equivalent in the Spanish Penal Code. The defense must carefully analyze whether the conduct in question falls under any Spanish criminal offense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The statute of limitations constitutes an express ground for refusal provided for in Article 10 of the European Convention on Extradition. In a case resolved by the Plenary Session of the Criminal Chamber of the National High Court in 2023 (Order 21\/2023, of April 14), the extradition of two citizens to Switzerland was denied, considering that the acts had become time-barred according to Spanish legislation. This ruling confirms that vested limitations cannot be prejudiced by the entry into force of a new treaty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In practice, a significant number of Swiss applications suffer from documentary deficiencies: imprecise descriptions of the facts, absence of judicial decisions supporting the accusation, failure to identify the applicable criminal offense, or insufficient substantiation of the evidence. The defense must exploit each of these weaknesses before the National Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Spanish Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights impose insurmountable limits on extradition. If there are indications that the person sought might suffer a violation of their fundamental rights, the defense must assert them forcefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defense in Spain resolves the extradition. The defense in the country of origin of the funds resolves the case.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the rule that the best international criminal lawyers understand and that many firms ignore.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a person is sought by Switzerland for money laundering, and the allegedly illicit funds originate from Venezuela, Colombia, or another Latin American country, the defense in Spain can achieve the denial of extradition, but this does not eliminate the root of the problem. The Swiss proceedings continue. Bank accounts remain frozen. And, above all, the question of the origin of the funds remains open.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Dual defense involves acting simultaneously in three scenarios:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When the country of origin is Venezuela, this dimension of defense acquires additional complexity: the political context, the limitations of the judicial system, the existence of international sanctions (OFAC, EU, GLOMAG), and the difficulty in obtaining reliable official documentation all demand a team with in-depth knowledge of the local situation and the capacity for immediate action.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A defense that does not cover all three jurisdictions simultaneously is an incomplete defense. And an incomplete defense, in these cases, is equivalent to a foregone conclusion.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n VENFORT Abogados is one of the few firms in the Spanish-speaking world with the proven capability to coordinate transnational criminal defenses involving Switzerland, Spain, and Latin American countries simultaneously.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This capability is not theoretical. It is operational and routine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n VENFORT maintains exclusive, ongoing working relationships with top-tier criminal law firms in Geneva and Zurich, specializing in Swiss economic criminal law, money laundering, banking litigation, and proceedings before the Federal Prosecutor's Office and cantonal prosecutors. These alliances are not circumstantial or the result of occasional referrals; they have been built over years of effective collaboration on real cases, allowing for a level of trust, fluidity, and agility that can only be achieved through strong, consolidated professional ties.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When a VENFORT client faces criminal proceedings in Switzerland, we don't look for a Swiss lawyer: we activate one, because they are already part of our work structure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The other leg of dual defense\u2014performance in the country of origin for the funds\u2014requires direct legal presence and in-depth knowledge of the local judicial system. In Venezuela's case, VENFORT has an unparalleled competitive advantage:<\/p>\n\n\n\n For other countries, VENFORT represents law firms and institutional clients in fifteen jurisdictions: Portugal, Andorra, France, the United Kingdom, Colombia, Panama, the Dominican Republic, the United States, Belgium, Angola, Dubai, Mozambique, and Singapore, in addition to Spain and Venezuela. This network of consolidated alliances, built over years of effective collaboration in real cases, reaffirms the firm's commitment to top-tier legal services in each jurisdiction where it operates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n International criminal defense does not allow for improvisation. It requires teams that already know each other, have already worked together, and can react in hours, not weeks. VENFORT's ability to simultaneously coordinate actions in Madrid, Geneva, Zurich, Caracas, and other capitals is what distinguishes the firm from any other Spanish-speaking firm in this field.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The strategic direction of these types of defenses falls to Dr. Alan Aldana, Founding Partner of VENFORT Abogados, with over twenty years of experience in Spain and Venezuela.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accredited before the International Criminal Court, certified in OFAC sanctions by Florida International University, and with training in negotiation and leadership from Harvard and Yale, Dr. Aldana has participated in highly complex extradition proceedings, challenges to INTERPOL red notices, advising governments and sovereign entities, and international defenses in high-profile cases, including the Panama Papers, the 2009 financial crisis, and the Odebrecht case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n If you find yourself in any of the following situations, you need immediate specialized advice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In extradition proceedings between Switzerland and Spain for economic crimes, the defense that wins is the one that understands that the battlefield is not one country, but three.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The strength of the Swiss request ultimately depends on the accreditation of the predicate offense. And the predicate offense is investigated, challenged, or dismantled in the country of origin of the funds. The defense in Spain is the shield. The defense in the country of origin is the sword. And coordination with Switzerland is the battlefield where the outcome is decided.<\/p>\n\n\n\n VENFORT Attorneys brings together experience, alliances, and operational capacity to cover all three dimensions with the rigor, confidentiality, and speed of reaction that these cases demand. Contact us<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Director of the Department of International Criminal Law
Lawyer accredited to the International Criminal Court<\/p>\n\n\n\n
www.venfort.com
March 2026<\/p>\n\n\n\nSwitzerland requests extradition from Spain: an increasingly frequent scenario<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
I. Legal Framework: How extradition between Switzerland and Spain is processed<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
European Convention on Extradition of 1957<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
B. Bilateral Convention of 1883<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
C. 1996 Convention and the Schengen Agreement<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
D. Law 4\/1985, on Passive Extradition<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
II. The typical pattern: money laundering without an accredited predicate offense<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The reason is legally decisive: there can be no money laundering without a predicate offense.<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
In the cases we frequently observe, the pattern is as follows:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
III. Effective Defense Before the National High Court: Arguments and Strategies<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1. Insufficiency in the accreditation of the prior offense<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Lack of double jeopardy<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3. Prescription of facts<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
4. Documentary Deficiencies and Incomplete Records<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
5. Protection of fundamental rights<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
IV. The dual defense: why defending in Spain is not enough<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
A. In Spain: before the National High Court<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
B. In Switzerland: before the criminal and financial authorities<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
C. In the country of origin of the funds<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
V. VENFORT Abogados: Top-tier Alliances in Switzerland and an Operational Transnational Network<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Consolidated alliances with ultra-specialized Swiss firms<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Transnational networks in countries of origin<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
Coordination <\/strong>oceanic triothe advantage<\/strong> operational<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Our everyday experience includes:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
VI. Dr. Alan Aldana: Leadership in Transnational Criminal Defense<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Its differential value in Switzerland-Spain procedures is twofold:<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
VII. Who is this article addressed to?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Final reflection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n