The amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) significantly broadens the scope of persons subject to its provisions. Until now, the focus had primarily been on financial intermediaries who manage or transfer third-party assets. The Act now also covers certain professional advisory services relating to property transactions.
At the SVIT Zurich standing lunch, lawyer Christian Suter of Suter.Legal used specific examples to illustrate the impact the changes will have on property firms. It is particularly important to note that it is not the professional title, but the actual activity carried out, that determines whether a person is subject to the Act.
Not every estate agent is automatically affected
In principle, estate agents, brokers, trustees, solicitors, architects and other professionals may fall under the new regulations if they are professionally involved in a covered property transaction.
This applies not only to the direct sale of land. So-called ‘share deals’, in which control over a property company is transferred, may also be covered. The regulation also takes into account certain building lease transactions carried out for consideration.
Ordinary property management or architectural services, on the other hand, do not automatically lead to being subject to the regulations. The decisive factor is whether a specific, legally defined advisory activity is involved.
The five-million threshold is not a general exemption
An important exemption applies to property transfers with a value of less than five million Swiss francs. These are exempt provided that the purchase price is settled in full through banks or other financial intermediaries subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA).
Further exemptions apply in particular to family asset transfers, inheritances, gifts and the purchase of owner-occupied residential property in Switzerland.
Whether a transaction is subject to the Act also depends on whether it is carried out on a professional basis. In this regard, the Ordinance takes into account, amongst other things, the annual turnover from advisory services, the number of clients and the transaction volume. Even providing independent advice as a secondary activity may constitute professional practice. Therefore, failing to meet certain thresholds does not automatically mean an exemption.
New due diligence obligations and substantial fines
Advisers subject to the regulations must identify their contracting parties, determine the beneficial owners and clarify the purpose and background of a transaction on a risk-based basis. The results must be documented in a transparent manner.
There are also organisational requirements. Companies must introduce appropriate control processes, train staff and take relevant sanctions into account.
If there is reasonable suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing, an immediate report to the MROS reporting office may be required. The reporting obligation may still apply even if negotiations are terminated due to such suspicion.
The consequences are significant. A deliberate breach of the reporting obligation may result in fines of up to 500,000 Swiss francs, whilst a negligent breach may result in fines of up to 150,000 Swiss francs.
Apply for SRO membership by 1 December
An important deadline is approaching for newly regulated advisers who are already active as at 1 October 2026. An application for membership must be submitted to a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) recognised by FINMA by 1 December 2026. The statutory due diligence obligations have been in force since October.
In future, the SRO will monitor compliance with the regulations. Members of SVIT Switzerland have the option, amongst others, of joining the SRO TREUHAND|SUISSE.
Anyone who only takes up such professional activity at a later date must submit an application for membership within two months.
Transparency register introduces additional requirements
In parallel with the amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), the new Federal Act on the Transparency of Legal Persons (TJPG) came into force. It obliges numerous companies to identify their beneficial owners and report them to a central federal register.
In principle, a beneficial owner is defined as anyone who, directly or indirectly, holds at least 25 per cent of the capital or voting rights, or who controls a company in any other way.
For property companies, this is particularly relevant in the case of complex shareholding structures. The reporting deadlines depend on the legal form, audit status and other requirements. They should not be confused with the SRO deadline of 1 December.
The Transparency Register has become operational. However, the electronic register enquiry function for authorised advisers is not yet available.
Property companies must review their processes
The presentations at the SVIT standing lunch highlighted the immediate need for action. Property companies should assess whether their services fall within the scope of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA), define responsibilities and adapt their internal procedures.
Particularly in the case of larger transactions, property companies and complex ownership structures, the identification and documentation of beneficial owners are becoming increasingly important.
The new regulations therefore do more than simply increase the administrative burden; they make compliance with anti-money laundering legislation an integral part of professional property transactions.
