01
Key Takeaways
- On 1 October 2026, revised provisions of Switzerland’s Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) enter into force, for the first time expressly covering certain “advisers” – regardless of professional title.
- Covered are natural and legal persons who, on a professional basis, participate for third parties in certain financial transactions – for instance real estate transactions, the formation or management of non-operational entities, and professional domiciliation services provided for more than six months.
- Lawyers and notaries remain explicitly excluded for their genuine judicial, administrative or arbitral representation and related advice – professional secrecy under Art. 13 of the Lawyers Act (LLCA) and Art. 321 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC) remains unaffected in that respect.
- Once the scope is triggered, risk-based identification, documentation and, where applicable, reporting obligations apply (Art. 8b–8d, Art. 9 revised AMLA).
- A specific limitation applies to lawyers and notaries: the reporting duty only applies where a financial transaction is carried out in the name or for the account of a client and the information is not protected by professional secrecy.
02
Who actually counts as an “adviser” under AMLA from October 2026?
What matters is not the professional title but the substance of the mandate. Under revised Art. 2 para. 1 let. c and Art. 2 para. 3bis AMLA, a person counts as an adviser where they participate professionally, for a third party, in financial transactions – including the organisation of funds – in connection with specified legal acts. These include the sale or purchase of real estate, the formation or establishment of certain non-operational Swiss or foreign legal entities, their management or administration, contributions and distributions, and the sale or purchase of such entities. Revised Art. 2 para. 3ter AMLA additionally covers professional domiciliation services, once an address or premises are made available for more than six months.
03
Which activities of lawyers and notaries remain excluded?
Important exclusions apply to core legal work: lawyers and notaries acting in judicial, criminal, administrative or arbitral proceedings fall outside the adviser regime for that activity – this includes representation, advice connected with preparing or conducting proceedings, fact-finding, litigation-risk assessment, and enforcement of a procedural outcome. Further statutory exclusions apply to certain low-risk family, succession and donation matters, the acquisition of residential property for personal use, agricultural situations, intra-group transactions, and purely notarial authentication.
The provisions concerning state notaries do not enter into force on 1 October 2026, allowing the cantons time to adapt their legislation.
04
Where does professional secrecy remain strongest?
The relevant framework is professional secrecy under Art. 13 of the Lawyers Act (LLCA) and Art. 321 of the Swiss Criminal Code (SCC). Art. 13 LLCA places everything entrusted to a lawyer by clients in the exercise of the profession under professional secrecy, without time limit and vis-à-vis third parties. Art. 321 SCC criminalises the disclosure of a secret entrusted to or learned by a lawyer, notary or other listed professional in the course of their professional activity, subject to statutory exceptions. Professional secrecy is strongest where the work is recognisably lawyer-specific: legal analysis, legal opinions, litigation strategy, regulatory defence, representation before authorities or courts, and fact-finding necessary for legal advice or litigation-related representation. The Federal Supreme Court has confirmed that fact-finding connected with pending or threatened disputes can fall within the core area of lawyer activity – while also clarifying that compliance tasks, business administration and asset-management-type activities are not automatically protected merely because a lawyer performs them.
05
Where does AML due diligence actually begin?
Due diligence obligations begin once an adviser falls within the revised statutory scope. Where this is the case, revised Art. 8b AMLA requires verifying the client’s identity, identifying the beneficial owner, establishing and retaining relevant documents, and identifying the object and purpose of the requested transaction or service – with additional clarification of background and purpose required where elevated risk justifies it. Revised Art. 8c AMLA makes the extent of due diligence risk-based, allowing simplified or enhanced measures depending on the risk profile. Revised Art. 8d AMLA further requires organisational measures to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing and violations of coercive measures under the Embargo Act. The sequencing matters: the first question is always whether a covered form of participation in a transaction exists at all – only then does the question of which risk level requires which measures arise.
06
Does the reporting duty override professional secrecy?
Not as a general rule. Revised Art. 9 para. 1ter AMLA introduces reporting duties for advisers once statutory suspicion thresholds are met – for instance grounded suspicion of money laundering, qualified tax offences, criminal or terrorist organisations, or terrorist financing. For lawyers and notaries, however, revised Art. 9 para. 2 AMLA contains a specific limitation: the reporting duty only applies where a financial transaction is carried out in the name or for the account of a client and the information is not protected by professional secrecy under Art. 321 SCC. The same logic appears in revised Art. 11a AMLA on requests for additional information from the Money Laundering Reporting Office (MROS): lawyers and notaries are only required to provide information under the conditions of revised Art. 9 para. 2 AMLA.
07
How should a mandate be structured organisationally?
In practice, a clear two-track structure is advisable. Track A bundles the genuine legal advice – legal questions, counsel’s analysis, litigation strategy, regulatory defence, risk assessment, and lawyer work product – with limited access and controlled distribution, so that the dominant purpose remains recognisably legal advice or representation. Track B contains the AMLA-relevant documentation – identity verification, beneficial-owner identification, transaction purpose, source-of-funds or source-of-wealth evidence where relevant, risk classification, and escalation notes – and must be able to demonstrate compliance without disclosing protected legal strategy. In addition, revised Art. 18a AMLA requires self-regulatory organisations, when conducting AMLA controls of lawyers and notaries, to use lawyers and notaries for those controls and to restrict access to material protected by professional secrecy.
08
What should Swiss entrepreneurs and family offices do now?
Swiss entrepreneurs, family offices and privately held groups should review their adviser ecosystem before 1 October 2026. The most exposed situations are cross-border restructurings, real estate transactions, holding-company formations, domiciliary structures, acquisition vehicles, family-office platforms, and transactions involving non-operational legal entities. The first step is mandate mapping: identifying who provides pure legal advice, who participates in execution, who administers entities, who provides domiciliation, who coordinates funds, and who interacts with banks or other financial intermediaries. On this basis, engagement letters, onboarding procedures, privilege protocols, AMLA trigger checklists and document retention practices should be aligned.
In parallel, beneficial owners and control chains should be documented for the new Swiss Transparency Register. In real-estate matters, this complements the Lex Koller and structuring analysis for international investors.
09
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the revision also affect pure litigation representation by lawyers? No. Representation in judicial, criminal, administrative or arbitral proceedings, and the advice connected with it, fall outside the adviser regime.
From when must an adviser comply with the new due diligence obligations? From 1 October 2026, provided the activity falls within revised Art. 2 para. 1 let. c or para. 3bis/3ter AMLA.
Is it enough to simply continue our existing engagement letters unchanged? Not without review. Mandate mapping is necessary to determine which activities will count as adviser activity under AMLA and need to be documented accordingly.
Will lawyers now have to report every transaction they participate in? No. The reporting duty under Art. 9 para. 2 AMLA applies to lawyers and notaries only cumulatively: a financial transaction in the name or for the account of the client, and no protective effect of professional secrecy.
What happens when an engagement combines both legal advice and transaction execution? This is exactly where the two-track structure helps: separate documentation of legal advice on one side and AMLA-relevant due diligence on the other, so both aspects remain cleanly demonstrable.
Primary sources