Swiss Arbitration Quick Tips

Swiss Arbitration Quick Tip #2: Perjury Risk in Swiss-Seated Arbitrations

By Nhu-Hoang Tran Thang, Astute Dispute Resolution (15 July 2026)

In an arbitration seated in Switzerland, false statements made by parties, witnesses, experts, translators or interpreters may trigger criminal liability. 

Pursuant to Articles 306 and 307 of the Swiss Criminal Code, which apply to international arbitrations seated in Switzerland by virtue of Article 309 of the Swiss Criminal Code, false statements made to an arbitral tribunal after the person making the statement has been warned of the criminal consequences under Swiss law may result in a custodial sentence not exceeding three years (for parties) or five years (for witnesses, experts, translators and interpreters), or in a monetary penalty. 

Unlike many legal systems where perjury requires the breach of a formal oath, Swiss law attaches criminal liability to a false statement regardless of whether it was made under oath. Nor is it necessary to comply with the formalities applicable to testimony before Swiss state courts, such as the requirement that the transcript be read to witnesses and signed by them. It suffices that the witness be reminded of (i) the duty to tell the truth, (ii) any right to refuse testimony, and (iii) the criminal consequences under Articles 306 and 307 of the Swiss Criminal Code (Decision of the Zurich High Court published in ZR 110 (2011), Nr. 27, pp. 78-84). In practice, arbitral tribunals seated in Switzerland are therefore advised to issue this reminder at the outset of each witness or expert examination, for example by having witnesses and experts read a declaration confirming this awareness. The reminder may also be recorded in a procedural order. 

Beyond criminal law consequences, under Swiss arbitration law, revision of an award is available where a criminal act, including false testimony, directly influenced the outcome of the arbitration (Article 190a al. 1 let. b Swiss Private International Law Act; Swiss Federal Tribunal’s decision 4A_596/2008 of 6 October 2009).