Lawful asset tracing: what registers show and what only a court can obtain

An established claim is worth little unless one knows where to look. Before any action, the question of the debtor’s assets arises sharply in Switzerland, where proceedings provide no Anglo-American discovery phase and banking secrecy retains real effect. Asset tracing therefore means building, by stacking public sources, a reasoned map of what exists and what can be reached.

That map serves two purposes. It informs the decision whether to act, and it allows swift action once procedure permits. It never replaces enforcement: knowing where an asset sits and being able to seize it are distinct questions, often separated by months.

Public sources and what they actually yield

No single source discloses a person’s wealth. Each yields a fragment, and the value of the work lies in how those fragments intersect.

• Commercial register: shareholdings, corporate offices, registered seats, amendments, striking off. It reveals structures, rarely assets.
• Land register: accessible depending on the canton and on a legitimate interest, it identifies real property where that property is not held through a foreign entity.
• Debt enforcement register: an extract may be obtained with the debtor’s consent and a legitimate interest; it shows that proceedings exist, not their detail.
• Official publications: bankruptcies, calls to creditors, notices in cantonal gazettes.
• Foreign registers: beneficial ownership registers where they survive, following the restriction of public access in several European jurisdictions.
• Professional sources: financial press, published judgments, major shareholding disclosures for listed companies.

Following ownership chains

Wealth is rarely visible at the first layer. A holding company owns a subsidiary, which owns a building, which is let to another entity in the same group. The work consists in reconstructing those chains, identifying professional directors and shared addresses, spotting changes of corporate office shortly before a dispute. Such indicators guide; they prove nothing. A complex structure may be entirely legitimate, and it would be imprudent to present it otherwise before the facts are established.

Jurisdictions matter as much as entities. A trust, a foundation or a shell company in a low-tax territory changes not only the difficulty of the search but also the procedural route available: recognition of a judgment, jurisdiction of courts, international cooperation. That analysis belongs to the lawyer, and the enquiry must supply usable, dated, sourced material.

What no open source provides

It should be said plainly: bank balances, account statements, custody holdings, declared income, tax files, private contracts and electronic messages are not obtained by research, however thorough. Freezing orders, account blocks, disclosure orders, searches and mutual legal assistance are the preserve of public authorities. A report implying otherwise is a false report.

Clients sometimes assume a well-connected firm can work around this. It cannot, and any provider suggesting otherwise should be treated with caution. The boundary is not a matter of resources but of legal power.

The practical consequence matters. The investigation timetable must be built backwards from the timetable of interim measures: identify assets before service, so that the debtor cannot reorganise them, while accepting that banking cooperation will arrive only after a decision. In criminal matters access to bank data exists, but it runs through the public prosecutor, and it is slow.

Cost discipline follows the same logic. A search that begins with a list of jurisdictions and asset classes rather than with a question will consume budget without narrowing anything. The question should be concrete: is there a property in this canton, a shareholding in this company, an income stream that a court could attach. Each answer either opens a line of enquiry or closes it.

The right question: what can be proved?

A useful tracing report grades its conclusions at three levels: established by a document, probable on converging indicia, unverified. For each asset it states the source, the date of consultation and the degree of certainty, and it identifies what would be needed to consolidate each point — a notarised deed, a register extract, a third-party confirmation.

That discipline is not excessive caution. Assets announced and then not found at the moment of enforcement cost more than an honest map of what exists. And a report whose every assertion can be checked withstands contradiction, which is precisely what is asked of it the day it is produced in court.

If you need to establish a counterparty’s asset position before bringing a claim, or to prepare an interim measure, an initial confidential consultation will define the sources available, realistic timing and what must go through the courts. It commits you to nothing. These pages are editorial information and do not constitute legal advice.