Key points. Swiss criminal law has no offence specifically named “deepfake”, but existing offences cover most cases. A cloned voice or face used to obtain a payment is primarily fraud (Art. 146 SCC), prosecuted ex officio. Impersonating someone is identity misuse (Art. 179decies SCC, in force since 1 September 2023), prosecuted only on complaint within three months. Sexual or defamatory deepfakes fall under the offences against honour, while civil interim measures (Art. 28 CC, Art. 261 et seq. CPC) are often the fastest way to have content removed. Swiss authorities have jurisdiction even when the author and the platform are abroad.
A chief financial officer receives a video call in which the face and voice of his superior ask him, in strict confidence, to execute a transfer linked to an acquisition before the markets close. The next day, it turns out that the superior never called. This scenario is no longer speculative, it is already being argued before criminal authorities. The question that follows is whether Swiss law has an offence for such facts.
Does Swiss law have a specific deepfake offence?
No provision of the Swiss Criminal Code names deepfakes. The analysis therefore relies on existing offences, which are sufficient in most situations provided they are combined. The most recent is identity misuse under Art. 179decies SCC, in force since 1 September 2023, which punishes anyone who uses the identity of another person without their consent with the intention of causing them harm or of obtaining an unlawful advantage for themselves or a third party, on complaint, with a custodial sentence of up to one year or a monetary penalty.
Borrowing a person’s face and voice in order to pass oneself off as them falls prima facie within this provision, since identity is not limited to a name or a social security number. Two limits must however be noted. The offence is prosecuted only on complaint, which must be filed within three months from the day the victim learned who the author is (Art. 31 SCC). The penalty is also modest, so identity misuse accompanies a deepfake case more than it carries it.
It is sometimes said that Art. 179novies SCC applies. That reading is wrong, since this provision punishes the obtaining of sensitive personal data that is not freely accessible. It targets data theft, not the fabrication of a false image from public data.
The cloned-voice scam is first and foremost fraud
Where a deepfake is used to obtain a transfer, the central offence is fraud (Art. 146 SCC), which requires deceit that is astucieuse (artful), an error, a disposition of assets and a loss. Artfulness is recognised where the author uses an elaborate web of lies, fraudulent manoeuvres or a staged scenario. A cloned voice answering its interlocutor’s questions in real time is a staged scenario par excellence. The penalty is up to five years, from six months to ten years where the author commits fraud for a living, and the offence is prosecuted ex officio, except between relatives.
The difficulty lies elsewhere. Case law refuses to find artfulness where the victim neglected the most basic checks their situation required. A company that authorises a transfer of several hundred thousand francs on a single call, without a second signature or a call-back to a known number, therefore risks having its own carelessness discussed. Frankly, the point is rarely decided against the victim when the method is sophisticated, but it is raised, and it is raised before the insurer too. The internal payment approval procedure is therefore not merely a preventive measure. It weighs on the criminal qualification and on the insurance cover.
Sexual deepfakes and damage to one’s image
The second scenario is that of a person whose face is placed on sexual images, or to whom words are attributed that they never said. Criminal law responds with the offences against honour, namely defamation and calumny (Art. 173 and 174 SCC) and insult (Art. 177 SCC), all prosecuted on complaint, and with the identity misuse already mentioned. Pornography (Art. 197 SCC) comes into play where the content is made accessible to minors or falls within the categories the law prohibits as such. Parliamentary work is under way on a provision specific to sexual deepfakes, so the framework may change quickly. In the meantime, cases are built with these texts.
Civil law is often faster than criminal law for what matters first, namely getting the content taken down. Infringement of personality rights (Art. 28 CC) opens the way to interim measures (Art. 261 et seq. CPC), which a court can order within days, and to compensation for moral harm. In practice, both routes are almost always pursued together: the criminal complaint to identify and punish the author, the civil application to obtain removal and establish the damage.
The author and the platform are abroad
This is the ordinary case. It does not deprive the Swiss authorities of jurisdiction, since an offence is deemed committed both where the author acted and where the result occurred (Art. 8 SCC), and the result, whether the financial loss or the harm to reputation, occurs where the victim lives. It does complicate enforcement. Mutual legal assistance with the United States, where most platforms are based, takes months. Three fronts should therefore be opened in parallel: the complaint in Switzerland, the takedown request to the platform under its own procedures, which often succeeds faster than a court decision, and the immediate preservation of evidence, time-stamped screenshots, page addresses and account identifiers, before the content disappears or migrates.
For a company that has made a transfer, add the bank recall, to be requested the same day, and, where the funds passed through an account in Switzerland, a freezing request to the public prosecutor of the relevant canton, a point covered in a separate article on scam money that passes through a Swiss account.
How we act
For a company, the firm files the fraud complaint with the appropriate requests, initiates the bank recall, notifies the insurer within the policy deadlines and reviews the payment approval procedure, since the second incident costs more than the first. For an individual, it files the criminal complaint for identity misuse and damage to honour, applies for interim measures, sends takedown requests to the platforms and has the content recorded before it is deleted. In fine, the order of the steps matters as much as the steps themselves.
Frequently asked questions
How long do I have to file a complaint?
Three months from learning who the author is, for offences prosecuted on complaint, namely identity misuse and offences against honour (Art. 31 SCC). Fraud is prosecuted ex officio. In every case, digital evidence survives only a few days, so the legal deadline is largely theoretical.
My company made the transfer. Will insurance cover the loss?
That depends on the policy, whether it covers fraud, cyber risk or liability. Most require prompt notification and a criminal complaint, and some exclude gross negligence. The policy should be read at the same time as the complaint is prepared, not afterwards.
Can a video be removed quickly?
Yes, in two ways. The platform’s reporting procedure, often effective within days for non-consensual sexual content, and civil interim measures (Art. 261 et seq. CPC), which bind the host or an identifiable author. The criminal complaint follows, with a view to punishment.
Is a deepfake a crime in Switzerland?
Not as such, but its use usually is: fraud when it serves to obtain money, identity misuse when it impersonates a person, and offences against honour when it attributes false words or images. Which offence applies determines whether a complaint is needed and within what deadline.
Your situation deserves a precise reading
Whether it is a transfer obtained through a cloned voice, a misused face or fabricated words, the first consultation determines what can be blocked, removed and prosecuted, and in what order. It lasts forty-five minutes and can be booked on +41 22 512 76 00 or through the contact form.