Search
Sucheingabe löschenFinancial intermediaries are subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA, SR 955.0) and include banks, asset managers and trustees, fund management companies, investment companies with variable capital, limited partnerships for collective investment schemes, investment companies with fixed capital, collective asset managers, insurance institutions, securities firms and casinos. These financial intermediaries, as defined in Art. 2 para. 2 AMLA, require authorisation, for example from the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) or the Federal Office for the Control of Precious Metals, and are subject to prudential supervision.
However, financial intermediaries also include persons who, on a professional basis, accept or hold third-party assets or assist in their investment or transfer (the so-called parabanking sector, Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA); in particular, persons who:
- engage in the credit business (namely through consumer or mortgage loans, factoring, trade finance or finance leases);
- provide payment services, namely carry out electronic transfers on behalf of third parties or issue or manage payment instruments such as credit cards and traveller’s cheques;
- trade, on their own account or on behalf of others, in banknotes and coins, money market instruments, foreign exchange, precious metals, commodities and securities (securities and book-entry securities) as well as their derivatives;
- make investments as an investment adviser;
- hold or manage securities.
Financial intermediaries in the parabanking sector pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA do not require authorisation, but must be subject to a self-regulatory organisation (SRO) (Art. 14 para. 1 AMLA).
In an Ordinance of 11 November 2015 (AMLO, SR 955.01), the Federal Council established the distinction between professional and non-professional activities. The thresholds for professional activity are defined in Art. 7 et seq. AMLO.
Certain financial intermediaries are, in turn, exempt from the scope of the AMLA: these include the Swiss National Bank, tax-exempt occupational pension institutions and persons who provide their services exclusively to tax-exempt occupational pension institutions, as well as all financial intermediaries under Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA who provide their services exclusively to financial intermediaries under Art. 2(2) AMLA or to foreign financial intermediaries subject to equivalent supervision (Art. 2(4) AMLA).
The former supervisory authority (integrated into FINMA since 1 January 2009) has published various circulars on regulatory status issues, including Circular 2011/1 on activities as a financial intermediary, and has summarised these in a commentary on regulatory status. Although some of the circulars and the commentary on regulatory oversight issued by the former supervisory authority are no longer entirely up to date, they can still be usefully consulted as an aid to interpretation in individual cases.
Under the revision of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) adopted on 26 September 2025, so-called advisers will now also be subject to the AMLA and required to fulfil due diligence and reporting obligations in accordance with the AMLA (Art. 8b et seq., Art. 9 para. 1ter–sexies and 2 r-AMLA) and to join an SRO (Art. 12 lit. d r-AMLA). Advisors are defined as natural and legal persons who, on a professional basis, assist third parties in financial transactions, including fundraising, in connection with the following specific legal transactions (Art. 2 para. 3bis r-AMLA):
Natural and legal persons who, on a professional basis and for a period of more than six months, provide addresses or premises as a domicile or registered office for legal entities are also considered to be advisers (Art. 2 para. 3ter r-GwG).
Finally, public notaries employed under public law who, in this capacity, assist third parties in financial transactions—including the raising of funds in connection with specific legal transactions pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3bis lit. a–e r-GwG—are also deemed to be advisers (Art. 2 para. 3quater r-GwG). For this type of adviser, however, the cantons designate the competent authority responsible for supervising compliance with the obligations under Chapter 2 (Art. 22b para. 1 r-GwG).
The thresholds for professional activity are defined in the AMLA Implementing Ordinance, as they are for financial intermediaries. However, the relevant provisions are currently only in draft form and are not expected to be adopted by the Federal Council until the second quarter of 2026.
Excluded from the scope of the AMLA are lawyers and notaries who carry out activities in connection with judicial, criminal, administrative or arbitration proceedings, including representation in proceedings and advice in connection with the conduct of proceedings, the clarification of the facts, the assessment of litigation risks, the prevention of such proceedings and the enforcement of the results of the proceedings (Art. 2 para. 4 lit. f r-AMLA).
Natural and legal persons authorised or supervised by the Swiss Federal Audit Oversight Authority (RAB) for their auditing and review activities are also exempt (Art. 2 para. 4bis r-AMLA). Due to the low risk of money laundering and terrorist financing, there are further exemptions from the scope of the AMLA, which are listed in Art. 2 para. 4ter r-AMLA.
The SRO PolyReg is a self-regulatory organisation recognised by FINMA, which monitors and enforces the implementation of the due diligence obligations under the AMLA among its members. This monitoring does not include investor protection, particularly as the AMLA is not designed for investor protection. SRO PolyReg therefore does not exercise prudential supervision over its members, but is responsible for ensuring compliance with the provisions of the AMLA, the regulations and the articles of association.
Following a resolution passed at the General Meeting in 2004, the SRO PolyReg’s membership list is not published. However, SRO PolyReg provides a member search function on its website which returns up-to-date information in response to a specific enquiry regarding an affiliated member. For its part, FINMA maintains a register of financial intermediaries affiliated with an SRO.
Membership confirmations can be downloaded online at any time from the SRO PolyReg website (in German, French, Italian or English). As the recipient of such a confirmation, you can verify its authenticity online. Verifying an online membership confirmation also confirms that the membership is current.
Interested parties may also enquire about a member’s regulatory status with the SRO PolyReg or request a membership confirmation directly from the member.
No. The internal affairs of the SRO PolyReg are subject to data protection and are not public. This also applies to media enquiries. However, the SRO PolyReg is obliged to provide information to FINMA and other authorities, such as the Reporting Office for Money Laundering (MROS) (Art. 27 para. 1–3 AMLA and Art. 29b AMLA).
Membership is open to any natural or legal person who, as a financial intermediary pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA, is required to join an SRO and who meets the requirements under Art. 14 para. 2 AMLA (§3 para. 1 of the Articles of Association of the SRO PolyReg (Articles of Association)). Natural and legal persons who are not financial intermediaries under Article 2(3) of the AMLA may join voluntarily as members if they regularly perform delegated due diligence duties on behalf of domestic or foreign financial intermediaries from within Switzerland, or if they can demonstrate that they require supervision for other reasons in connection with their business activities in the field of financial services. They are treated in the same way as financial intermediaries subject to supervision with regard to this activity (Article 3(2) of the Articles of Association).
Advisers under the r-AMLA may join the SRO PolyReg on a voluntary basis until the r-AMLA comes into force. It is expected that, from 1 October 2026, SRO membership will become a legal requirement for professionally active advisers (Art. 12(d) in conjunction with Art. 14(1) r-AML). Shell companies cannot become members of the SRO PolyReg. According to §23 of the Regulations, letterbox companies are defined as legal entities that do not engage in any commercial, manufacturing or other business activities conducted in a commercial manner. If a company does not engage in any commercial activity or does not have its own staff, this may be an indication that it is a letterbox company.
See the entry above under A. 1. Unless the answer is directly apparent from Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA or Art. 2 para. 3bis, 3terand 3quaterr-AMLA, FINMA provides legally binding guidance on the question of regulatory coverage. FINMA’s practice is summarised in Circular 2011/1 ‘Activities as a financial intermediary under the AMLA’.
Anyone carrying out an activity subject to the AMLA on a professional basis requires either a FINMA licence or – in the case of Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA – SRO membership (see also A.1 above). The thresholds for professional activity are defined in Art. 7 et seq. of the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance (AMLO; SR 955.01).
The member itself, as well as all persons entrusted with the administration and management and all employees who perform an AMLA-relevant task, must enjoy a good reputation with regard to their activities as financial intermediaries and offer the guarantee that they will fulfil their obligations under the AMLA and the regulations. In addition, members are obliged to carry out their activities at all times in accordance with the object laid down in the Statutes and to comply with the obligations arising from the AMLA, the directives of FINMA and the Regulations pursuant to Art. 25 AMLA. This prohibits any unauthorised (unlawful) activity, in particular the performance of activities requiring a licence without the corresponding licences, but also unethical business practices (§2 para. 2 and §4 para. 1 of the Statutes).
Against this background, an application for voluntary membership may be submitted, which will then be converted to active membership upon taking up an activity subject to regulation (see the various membership categories under point 1 of the SRO PolyReg fee scale (Fee Scale)). However, voluntary members are obliged to comply with all the association’s obligations and to notify SRO PolyReg in advance of commencing an activity subject to regulation using the change notification form, and to submit all necessary documents for substantive review. The activity subject to regulation may only be commenced once written confirmation has been received from SRO PolyReg, at which point membership becomes active.
Advisors who join SRO PolyReg on a voluntary basis prior to the entry into force of the r-GwG will benefit from a reduced membership fee throughout the entire calendar year 2026. The full membership fee for active membership will only be payable in the calendar year 2027, provided that the advisor carries out their activities on a professional basis.
If, however, no activity subject to regulation is intended, membership is only possible if there is another reason in accordance with §3(2) of the Statutes, which must be demonstrated during the admission procedure (see questions B.1).
Voluntary members are treated in the same way as members subject to registration, but benefit from reduced association fees (see points 3 and 4 of the fee scale).
The admission procedure is conducted exclusively in writing and consists of two phases. It begins with the submission of a complete application for admission by post. Receipt is confirmed in writing by SRO PolyReg without delay. At the same time, an initial review of the application is carried out to classify it into the contribution categories in accordance with the PolyReg contribution scale, and the one-off ‘admission fee’, which is charged for conducting the admission procedure, is invoiced. Until the admission fee has been paid in full, the SRO PolyReg secretariat will not carry out any review procedures. If the admission fee remains unpaid even after the third reminder, the application for admission will be rejected and FINMA will be informed.
Once the admission fee has been paid in full, the application is initially checked formally for completeness and correctness of form. Missing documents and/or incomplete information will be requested within a specified deadline. It should be noted that the application for admission effectively constitutes a member’s basic file, which accompanies them throughout the duration of their membership and must be kept up to date by the member at all times following admission (see question F.3). The application must therefore be completed carefully and legibly, although it may also be filled in by hand.
Once the application is complete, it will undergo a substantive review in a second phase. The purpose of this review is to determine whether the applicant can provide assurance of compliance with the obligations under the Money Laundering Act and the regulations of the SRO PolyReg, and in particular whether the applicant is capable of providing high-quality financial services that are legally and ethically sound, in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Articles of Association. The applicant is notified in writing of the findings and any outstanding issues raised by the Secretariat. A deadline of one month is set for the written response to the questions, which may be extended upon request. On average, between two and three exchanges of correspondence are required during the substantive review until all questions have been conclusively answered and all relevant documents (such as the compliance concept, model contracts, general terms and conditions, internal guidelines) have been fully reviewed. In the case of more complex business models, larger firms or exceptional findings, experience shows that the substantive review requires more than three exchanges of correspondence and is usually supplemented by a face-to-face supervisory meeting. For financial intermediaries providing services relating to virtual assets or financial services based on them (so-called Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs)), a face-to-face supervisory meeting is mandatory prior to any potential admission.
Once all questions have been answered and all finalised documents have been reviewed, the Managing Director decides on the outcome of the admission procedure, which may result in admission or refusal. The decision is communicated in writing via a confirmation of admission or – in the event of a refusal – a written, reasoned decision that may be appealed to the Arbitration Tribunal (see Questions H.9 and H.11). If admission is granted, the annual fee for the current calendar year is levied at the same time as the confirmation of admission is issued.
The duration of the admission procedure depends largely on the size of the applicant’s business, the complexity of the business model, and the quality and completeness of the statements and documents submitted by the applicant during the course of the admission procedure. The procedure is designed in such a way that a decision can be reached within a period of 4 to 12 weeks once a complete application has been submitted. It should be noted, however, that requests for missing documents or the need to answer questions during the substantive review process (phase 2) may lead to deviations from this estimate.
Experience shows that admission applications from Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASPs) or those involving more complex business models are likely to result in a longer admission procedure.
An express procedure does not exist.
No. Whilst we would be happy to meet you, a thorough formal and substantive review of the application is a legal obligation of SRO PolyReg and must be carried out regardless of your time constraints. The application review – combined with the administrative processing – takes time. It is therefore advisable to submit an application for membership to SRO PolyReg at an early stage.
The costs depend on the size of the business and the member’s activities (see also question C.6). Details regarding business size and the various membership categories depending on the nature of the business can be found in the SRO PolyReg fee scale.
In principle, the standard (one-off) fee for registering an applicant who wishes to carry out an activity subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) is CHF 1,600. Additional review fees apply for the examination of applications for admission from financial intermediaries providing services relating to virtual assets or financial services based on them (so-called VASPs) (see fee scale). Advance payments may also be required.
Applicants who merely intend to operate below the thresholds for professional activity or who do not intend to carry out any activities subject to the AMLA may apply for either inactive or voluntary membership. In this case, the admission fee is CHF 1,200.
Once admission has been granted, the annual membership fees vary between CHF 1,400 and CHF 5,800 depending on the size of the business and membership status.
For members in company size category 4 (28 or more employees), the managing director sets an individual admission and annual fee.
According to the fee scale, the following are counted (cumulatively): persons holding management positions within a business and those authorised to represent the business or active in AMLA-relevant areas, either individually or collectively. Double counting is avoided. Part-time positions are not taken into account. Third parties engaged (delegation of due diligence obligations) and auxiliary persons (outsourcing of activities subject to supervision). In this context, one application page 10 (including attachments) must be submitted for each natural person who performs AMLA-relevant tasks for the SRO member as part of the engagement of third parties or as an auxiliary person.
In addition to the annual membership fee, costs are incurred for the annual AMLA audits and the mandatory training. Audits carried out by PolyReg audit firms are invoiced on an hourly basis at a standard rate of CHF 250. If, in exceptional cases, audits are carried out by your own audit firm, their fee rates apply (see question G.7).
The one-off basic training course costs CHF 600 per person, and the annual continuing professional development events cost CHF 400 (see question F.3). The SRO PolyReg also organises in-person events at a cost of CHF 650 (basic course including lunch) and CHF 450 (continuing education including drinks and refreshments during breaks). The price also includes the provision of electronic training materials.
Finally, the SRO PolyReg charges fees for ongoing supervision and special services in accordance with the polluter-pays principle. These include, for example, the substantive review of extended business models and the implementation of supervisory measures involving exceptional effort.
With a reference letter, a third party vouches for the trustworthiness of an applicant vis-à-vis SRO PolyReg. This reference can be provided by various parties, be it the applicant's bank, a custodian bank, business partners or personal references.
The SRO PolyReg requires its members to ensure that certain key roles, deemed necessary for the internal implementation and enforcement of the obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) within the members’ organisations, are permanently staffed. The SRO is familiar with the roles of the contact person, the reporting officer and their deputy (deputy arrangement), the person responsible for file management and the person responsible for internal training (see application for membership, pages 4, 11, 12 and 15).
The contact person acts as the direct point of contact for the SRO PolyReg, able to receive instructions on behalf of the member in a legally valid manner and ensure their internal implementation within the member’s organisation. The contact person must be able to understand at least one national language. With a view to any potential arbitration proceedings, a signing authority registered in the Commercial Register and Swiss residency are also required (Article 41(3) of the Regulations). In the case of financial intermediaries offering crypto-services (VASPs), the role of the contact person must also be fulfilled by an executive board member (board of directors/management) who is operationally active and resident in Switzerland.
The person responsible for the file is accountable for the correct maintenance of customer documentation and must ensure, in view of the territorial scope of the AMLA, that the files are available on Swiss territory at all times. In particular, it must be possible to comply immediately with any requests for information from the SRO, the auditor, FINMA, as well as any seizure requests from law enforcement authorities (see §37 of the Regulations).
The reporting officer must ensure that reports from the member are submitted to MROS, that any asset freeze is implemented, and that the SRO PolyReg is informed without delay of any MROS reports (§42 and §43 of the Regulations).
The training officer must ensure that the member’s basic training and annual continuing professional development requirements are met and that staff have a sufficient level of knowledge of the AMLA (see question F.3).
In order to ensure adequate company organisation, the AMLA functions must be staffed by at least two internal persons (see question D.2).
In practice, this refers to all persons listed in the register of companies with signatory powers, as well as those persons who have an individual power of attorney for the applicant/member. These persons able to exercise rights and duties on behalf of the applicant/member, in particular with regard to the provision of financial intermediary activities. For these persons, a page 8 is to be filled out in the membership application form.
Otherwise, the documentation requirements are identical to those of the AMLA functionaries (see question D.12). In the case of personnel unions, the extended personal documentation must of course only be submitted once.
Provided your company meets the legal requirements, it may opt out of a limited audit. In this case, page 9 should not be completed; instead, reference should be made to the fact that the company has opted out.
If you have an audit firm, this must be stated on this page of the application and the details must be documented with the attachments listed in the application.
This does not pose a problem for ensuring the AMLA audit. Normally, all members are assigned an AMLA audit body by the SRO PolyReg anyway, unless a member’s application under Article 34(1) of the Articles of Association to be permitted to entrust their own audit firm with the AMLA audit is approved by the Board (see Question D.6).
If such a request is made as part of the application for membership, it must be accompanied by a declaration of acceptance of the mandate from the audit firm listed on page 9 of the application. If such a request is made at a later date, a declaration of acceptance of the mandate must be submitted subsequently.
Usually, the members of SRO PolyReg are assigned an AMLA inspection agency. However, according to §34 para. 1 of the Statutes, it is possible, upon approved request, to use the member's auditors for the AMLA inspection (so-called external audit body). However, this right is only open to members who have an auditor registered in the register of companies. An opting-out makes it impossible to submit a corresponding application.
The application for an external auditor can be made as early as in the application for membership by ticking the relevant box on page 9 of the application form, or at any later date.
A mandatory prerequisite is that the auditors must be approved by SRO PolyReg to conduct AMLA inspections in accordance with Art. 24a AMLA. The current list of licensed audit firms can be viewed on the SRO PolyReg website.
In addition, the auditor must be independent of the member to be inspected, which results from Art. 728 CO and the recognised guidelines on independence in the industry.
The auditor must confirm acceptance of the mandate to carry out AMLA inspections to SRO PolyReg by means of a written declaration of acceptance. In addition, the auditor must enclose a declaration whereby it undertakes to carry out inspection assignments of SRO PolyReg for the account of the member and to send the AMLA inspection report to SRO PolyReg after completion of the inspection activities.
A separate page 10 of the application must be completed for each of these individuals. For members in business size categories 3 and 4, the personnel details may be submitted in a separate list as an Excel spreadsheet.
Financial intermediaries and advisers may outsource their activities subject to supervision to so-called auxiliary persons within the meaning of Art. 2 para. 2 lit. b AMLO. In doing so, the auxiliary persons are covered by the regulation of their principal (SRO member) without having to join an SRO themselves as financial intermediaries or advisers. This requires, in particular, that they have been carefully selected by the client, that their training in relation to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) is guaranteed, and that they act exclusively in the name and on behalf of the client and are remunerated by the client. Finally, it must also be ensured in particular that the auxiliary person is appropriately integrated into the AMLA-relevant control and monitoring processes of the responsible financial intermediary within the meaning of Art. 2 para. 2 lit. b no. 2 GwV. This includes, in particular, ensuring the comprehensive detection of threshold breaches and the fulfilment of related due diligence obligations (smurfing control). These requirements apply regardless of whether the auxiliary person is themselves regulated as a financial intermediary.
In practice, the SRO PolyReg treats these auxiliary persons as employees of the financial intermediary/advisor and requires, for every natural person acting as an auxiliary person performing AMLA-relevant activities for the financial intermediary/advisor, a completed Application Form 10, a criminal record extract, a signed and dated copy of their passport or ID, and a copy of the so-called agency agreement. Furthermore, the financial intermediary/advisor is obliged to submit an updated list of agents to the SRO PolyReg on a quarterly basis without being asked.
In principle, members are required to attend the training courses organised by the SRO PolyReg (Article 60 of the Regulations). In accordance with Article 61(1) of the Regulations, PolyReg organises several basic training courses and refresher courses throughout the calendar year (in all national languages and in English, as well as in the form of webinars and in-person events). The training programme comprises a one-off, full-day basic training course (GK) and the completion of an annual, half-day refresher course (WK). In-house training is permitted exclusively for the basic training component. Refresher training remains the sole responsibility of the SRO PolyReg.
Large companies (generally those with 20 or more employees) that regularly hire new AMLA-relevant staff may apply for in-house training for the basic training of their employees using application form 14. In doing so, the member must acquire the necessary knowledge independently and separately from the basic training offered by the SRO PolyReg, but must ensure that the in-house training is comparable to the SRO PolyReg’s basic training in terms of content and scope.
Approval for in-house training also requires that the member has a suitable training manager with sound knowledge. This person may be the same as the AMLA function holder of the training manager as specified on page 12 of the application for membership. In this case, the member must draw up a detailed written training concept, which must be submitted to the managing director for approval. The training concept must provide information on the number of new employees joining the AMLA-relevant area each year, the target audience for the training, the method of delivery, the available infrastructure, the frequency and duration of training sessions, the trainers, and the content to be covered.
If the managing director approves such a request, the SRO PolyReg also monitors the implementation of the submitted training plan as part of its AMLA audits. Failure to implement the plan is subject to sanctions, as is failure to attend training sessions organised by the SRO PolyReg itself (see questions H.1 and H.2).
The application for in-house training can be submitted as early as in the application for admission by ticking the relevant box on page 14 of the application, or at any later date.
The information on page 15 of the application must be identical in content to that on pages 4, 11 and 12 of the application. The page must also be signed and dated by both the authorised signatory of the applicant/member and all named officers.
As AMLA functionaries effectively act as guarantors for a member, they are subject to greater regulatory scrutiny than a member’s ordinary employees. The SRO PolyReg therefore requires AMLA functionaries to provide extended personal documentation as part of an application for admission. This consists of a correctly completed page 16 of the application form, an original copy of a current criminal record extract, a signed and dated copy of a passport or ID card, a CV, and at least one qualification certificate supporting the CV. If AML officers are replaced during the course of membership, the same personal documentation is required from the new officers.
If you disagree with the written decision of the Executive Committee, you are free to appeal to the statutory arbitration tribunal of the SRO PolyReg (§6(3) and §37(1) of the Articles of Association). You have 10 days from receipt of the rejection decision to lodge the appeal in writing with the person responsible for the arbitration tribunal, Dr Claudia V. Brunner, Binzallee 4, 8055 Zurich (the date of the postmark is decisive for determining whether the appeal has been received in time). A simple notification is sufficient. A statement of grounds is not required at this stage. You will be requested to provide this separately by the person responsible for the arbitral tribunal, who will set a deadline for this.
The person responsible for the arbitration tribunal shall conduct the proceedings until a written statement of grounds for the appeal and a response to the appeal have been submitted. He will set appropriate deadlines for you and the SRO PolyReg , warn of the consequences of failure to comply, and collect from you the registration fee set at CHF 2,000 for this case (Article 38(7) of the Articles of Association; see question H.13).
The Arbitration Tribunal reviews contested decisions at its discretion (Article 38(5) of the Articles of Association). Its decisions are final (Article 35(2) of the Articles of Association). This is subject to the right of appeal to the Federal Supreme Court in accordance with Article 389 of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code, with significantly restricted grounds for appeal.
However, an appeal against a decision to refuse admission has no suspensive effect. The limitation period for registration under Article 11(1)(b) of the Money Laundering Ordinance (MLO) is therefore not interrupted.
SRO PolyReg collects and manages the data required by law concerning its members and its own activities, carries out the inspections to ensure compliance with the legal provisions and submits the necessary reports in accordance with the AMLA and tFINMA's guidelines (§2 para. 3 and §17 of the Statutes).
This means that data may be exchanged with FINMA to the extent provided for by law. Beyond this, SRO PolyReg strictly adheres to the provisions of the Federal Act on Data Protection and treats all data confidentially. This means in particular that SRO PolyReg does not provide any information about the association's internal affairs, neither to other members of the association nor to outsiders (§17 para. 2 of the Statutes).
Individual enquiries from third parties regarding the existence of a membership will be answered. The SRO PolyReg’s list of members is not public, in accordance with a General Meeting resolution. However, SRO PolyReg provides a member search function on its website, which returns up-to-date information in response to a specific enquiry regarding an affiliated member. For its part, FINMA maintains a register of financial intermediaries affiliated with an SRO. As they do not carry out any AMLA-relevant activities, voluntary members – unlike active and inactive members – are not listed as SRO members in the public FINMA register.
The various membership categories are defined in Section 1 of the contribution scale. Inactive members are financial intermediaries (and, from 1 January 2027, also advisers) who, at the end of a calendar year, submit an application for inactive membership to declare bindingly that they will not engage in professional activities within the meaning of the AML Ordinance for the duration of the coming calendar year. Submitting the application in good time means that the member pays a reduced membership fee in the coming calendar year. It should be noted that once approved, an application for inactive status is not valid indefinitely, but applies only to the coming calendar year. It is the responsibility of members to resubmit the application for inactive status annually by 31 December at the latest. Late applications will not be considered, even if the thresholds for professional activity are not exceeded.
As inactive members are financial intermediaries (and, from 1 January 2027, also advisers) who carry out activities relevant to the Anti-Money Laundering Act – albeit not on a professional basis – they are listed in the public FINMA register as SRO members (advisers are expected to be included from 1 January 2027).
Voluntary members, on the other hand, are members who do not carry out any AMLA-relevant activities and therefore neither financial intermediary activities pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA nor advisory activities pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3bis, 3teror 3quaterof the revised AMLA. As advisory activities will only become subject to regulation upon the entry into force of the revised AMLA, advisers may benefit from voluntary membership on a transitional basis during the 2026 calendar year. From 1 January 2027, membership will then be converted to active membership depending on whether the thresholds for professional activity are met. Voluntary members, like inactive members (provided that an application for inactive status was submitted in good time and approved by the SRO), benefit from a reduced membership fee (see C.5 for details).
However, inactive or voluntary membership has no effect on the audit requirement, particularly as these members are audited annually. The primary purpose of the audit is to verify actual inactivity or the non-performance of AML-relevant activities, which up to this point have only been declared prospectively. If the audit reveals that a member is acting professionally as a financial intermediary/advisor despite declared inactivity, or is carrying out financial intermediary or advisory activities despite declared voluntary status, the membership category will be adjusted accordingly and – in the event of conversion to active membership – the difference from the regular membership fee will be invoiced retrospectively.
SRO PolyReg is set up in such a way that its statutory services interact in the best possible way with the day-to-day business requirements of its members. Members are exposed to recurring requirements. This results in the following cycles:
The contribution year is based on the calendar year - regardless of when a member joins or leaves. It is not invoiced pro rata temporis because SRO PolyReg has to pay FINMA an annual supervisory fee depending on the number of its members as of 31 December of a calendar year, but irrespective of their size, level of activity and number of dossiers. It is therefore appropriate to levy the full fee on members leaving the organisation who were still members on 1 January of the following calendar year, as well as on new members joining during the year.
The pro rata costs of the supervisory levy currently amount to an average of CHF 500 per member. However, they are not passed on to the members separately, but are already included in the membership fee.
The training year also follows the calendar year. Accordingly, from the first year of membership onwards, each member must send all officers to the annual refresher course between January and December. The basic training must, in turn, be completed within six months of joining the organisation (see question F.3).
The audit cycle is not based on the calendar year, but is initially determined by the date of admission and subsequently by the date of the last audit. It should be noted that the audit period is also not based on the calendar year, but covers the entire period since the last audit. Due to the core supervisory role of the SRO PolyReg, the audit cycle takes precedence over the contribution cycle when answering various questions – particularly with regard to inactivity (see question G.2).
You must ensure, with immediate effect, that you comply with all the association’s obligations. Please note that compliance with these obligations is your responsibility, whilst it is the role of the SRO PolyReg to monitor you in this regard, to draw your attention to any breaches of duty where necessary, and to enforce compliance through sanctions if required.
Furthermore, it is also your responsibility to exercise the rights to which you are entitled under the Articles of Association and regulations, whilst observing any applicable deadlines and dates (e.g. application for inactive status).
The duties of the members result from the Statutes and the Regulations of SRO PolyReg.
SRO PolyReg has published the above-mentioned basic documents in the currently valid version in several languages on its website. They can therefore be consulted at any time and are assumed to be known to all members, especially as the members declare with the general statement on page 18 of the membership application form that they have taken note of the Statutes and Regulations and unconditionally submit to their provisions.
Apart from the due diligence obligations which you must comply with as a financial intermediary/advisor under the AMLA and which are specified in the SRO PolyReg regulations, and the fulfilment of the training obligation under Art. 8 AMLA, you are also subject to specific association obligations (such as the training obligation, the obligation to report changes, the duty to cooperate, and financial obligations). Compliance with these is a prerequisite for retaining membership, as is the absence of any complaints regarding the due diligence obligations under the AMLA.
The training obligation must be fulfilled by completing a basic training course within six months of the member’s admission, or for new employees from the date they take up their post (§39(2) of the Articles of Association in conjunction with §61(2) of the Regulations). The continuing education requirement must be fulfilled annually from the first year of membership. In this regard, the SRO PolyReg considers the requirement to have been met if all officers of a member have participated in continuing education in accordance with §41(2) of the Regulations.
In exceptional cases, the continuing education requirement may also be met by completing a training course with another SRO. However, this requires prior approval from the Managing Director of SRO PolyReg (Article 61(1) of the Regulations). SRO PolyReg recognises training courses organised by other SROs as equivalent to its own. However, AMLA courses offered by banks, insurance companies and other institutions are not recognised.
Furthermore, there is an internal obligation to report changes in accordance with §8(2) of the Articles of Association, as well as a general duty to provide information in accordance with §15 of the Articles of Association. Members must report any changes to the conditions that led to their membership to the Managing Director of their own accord and without delay. In doing so, they ensure that their membership file remains up to date. To assist members, the SRO PolyReg has developed a change notification form, which is to be used for all change notifications and which also provides information on any supporting documents that may need to be submitted. The form is available at any time on the SRO PolyReg website.
In addition to the obligation to pay membership fees and the general obligation to settle any amounts owed to the association, there is a comprehensive duty to cooperate, particularly in relation to (regular and extraordinary) audits (Article 51(6) and Article 53(3) of the Regulations), but also in terms of being constantly available, regarding the implementation of instructions from the SRO PolyReg, and in sanction proceedings (Article 54 para 2 of the Regulations).
Attendance and participation at the general meeting (§25 of the Statutes), suggestion of agenda items at the general meeting (§25 para. 4 of the Statutes), submission of an application for the use of one's own auditors as AMLA inspection agency (§34 para. 1 of the Statutes), submission of an application for in-house training (§61 par. 3 of the Regulations), submission of an application for approval to attend a training course at another SRO (§61 par. 1 of the Regulations), submission of an application for dispensation from the initial training course (§62 par. 1 of the Regulations), submission of a declaration of inactivity and payment of a reduced annual fee in the following year (point 1b of the fee scale), regulatory rights in exercising the due diligence obligations of the AMLA, namely the involvement of third parties (in accordance with §38 of the Regulations) as well as the submission of an application for a deferral of the audit in a maximum of two consecutive years (in accordance with §51 paras. 3 and 4 of the Regulations).
A (fee) invoice is an order of the SRO. Therefore, if necessary, it should be challenged at the office within 10 days, otherwise it becomes legally binding.
Either by resignation or by expulsion. Tacit termination, for example due to bankruptcy, is not provided for. It is the responsibility of members to fulfil their obligations to the association until the end of their membership (see question F.3 on the duty to report changes and the duty to cooperate). Even in the event of bankruptcy, membership must be terminated in the proper manner.
The only exception to this is in the case of deaths of owners of sole proprietorships. If, on the other hand, the sole shareholder or sole proprietor of a legal entity dies, the heirs must notify SRO PolyReg whether membership is to continue (which usually necessitates a new appointment of functions and thus a report of changes) or whether the company is to be liquidated.
Resignation may be effected at any time – in accordance with §9 of the Statutes and subject to a possible final inspection – by means of a written declaration including the reasons for the resignation to the managing director of SRO PolyReg.
Expulsion is generally the most severe sanction against a member and is usually imposed following disciplinary proceedings in which the member concerned has been afforded the right to be heard. However, members who fail to meet their financial obligations despite a registered reminder or who can no longer be contacted at the address provided are immediately expelled (Article 10(4) of the Statutes and Article 57(2) of the Regulations). In such cases, expulsion takes place directly and without a disciplinary procedure (see Question H.4).
Members are inspected on average once every twelve months by an inspection agency with regard to compliance with the association, due diligence and reporting duties on site at their premises (§51 para. 1 of the Regulations; see question F.3).
This rule applies to all members, in particular to inactive and voluntary members (see question E.3).
It is only waived if an active member is granted a deferral of inspection under §51(3) of the Regulations (see question G.2).
For active members, the regular audit may be postponed by up to two years, either ex officio or upon a member’s written request. The prerequisite for this is that the last audit was carried out by an audit firm of the SRO PolyReg and was not an initial audit, that no significant deficiencies were identified in the two previous audits, and that the member’s activities, given their scale (transaction volumes, assets under management, number of clients, etc.), the origin of the clients, the areas of activity and the stability of the business relationships, the member’s activities entail only a low risk of money laundering (Article 51(3) of the Regulations). Money transmission activities and blockchain-based financial services ( , VASP) are considered high-risk areas of activity, which is why, in line with the risk-based supervisory approach of the SRO PolyReg, no deferral of audit is granted to these members. Ideally, an active member can thus be placed on a three-year audit cycle.
In light of the above, initial audits can never be deferred. New members are therefore always subject to at least one initial audit before a request for a deferral of audit is considered. The initial audit effectively concludes the first year of membership.
Although a risk-based audit deferral may also be granted ex officio, it is generally the responsibility of members to apply for an audit deferral. SRO PolyReg provides a standardised form for this purpose. The following deadlines must be observed in accordance with §51(4) of the Regulations: For the first deferral of the audit, the application must be received by the SRO PolyReg secretariat within six months of the last audit. The application for the second deferral may be submitted no earlier than one year after the last audit, but must then be submitted within six months, i.e. no later than 18 months after the last audit.
A member's inspection agency is commissioned by SRO PolyReg in due time and with a deadline to carry out the AMLA inspection. It then contacts the member and arranges an inspection date. After the inspection has been completed, the inspection agency draws up a written report for the attention of SRO PolyReg and sends a copy directly to the member. The inspection service is then invoiced on the basis of the hourly expenses report to be signed by the member and is to be paid by the member (see question C.7).
Any objections recorded in the audit report will result in instructions from SRO PolyReg to remedy the situation in question and may – depending on the severity of the identified breach – lead to the initiation of sanction proceedings (Section 52(4) of the Regulations; see Question H.1).
The inspectors and SRO PolyReg shall maintain the business or professional confidentiality of the members (§51 para. 7 of the Regulations).
The inspections may also take place unannounced if this is required for the purpose of the inspection.
The inspection agencies check compliance with the provisions of the Anti-Money Laundering Act, the Statutes and the Regulations.
The inspection is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the risk-based supervisory concept and extends in particular to whether the required documents are properly completed and retained in implementation of the duty of due diligence and record keeping, whether the aforementioned documents indicate that the duties of identification and special clarification have been complied with, whether the duty to report has been duly fulfilled, if applicable, and whether the training obligation has been complied with and the employees have a sufficient level of knowledge, or whether an internal training concept has been fully implemented.
The inspection also extends to whether the requirements for affiliation to SRO PolyReg have been continuously met and whether all changes pursuant to §8 para. 2 of the Statutes have been reported without delay (§52 para. 1-3 of the Regulations).
An extraordinary inspection serves to clarify suspicious facts or irregularities as well as to gain additional knowledge in the case of detected breaches, if the level of knowledge does not already prove to be sufficient on the basis of the information from an ordinary inspection. (§53 para. 1 of the Regulations).
To conduct an extraordinary inspection (UB), an independent investigator may be appointed who acts on behalf of the board and reports his findings in writing to the executive committee or the board delegation of SRO PolyReg. The costs of the extraordinary audit are to be borne by the member (§53 paras. 1 and 4 of the Regulations).
The UB shall take evidence on file and prepare a written report on his findings. He may combine his report with a request for sanction. The member concerned shall assist the independent investigator and grant him/her any necessary access (§53 paras. 2 and 3 of the Regulations).
Based on the findings obtained in this way, the board shall decide on the elevation of any sanction proceedings.
The investigations may – insofar as the purpose of the investigation requires – also be carried out unannounced and/or brought forward (Section 51(4) of the Regulations).
Ordinary inspections are charged at a rate of CHF 250 per hour plus expenses and cash expenditure (70 centimes per km; 80 centimes per copy) if they are carried out by an inspection agency accredited by SRO PolyReg (so-called internal inspection agency). The same applies to the rate of the independent investigators. The billing is done in units of 15 minutes.
Otherwise, the hourly rates charged are based on the guidelines of the (member-specific) audit firm (see questions C.7 and D.6). PolyReg charges members who are audited by their member-specific audit body a percentage surcharge on the total audit costs as compensation for the expenses associated with control and supervision (contribution scale, section 6).
Established breaches by members against the association's duties or obligations under the AMLA and the Regulations, namely duties of due diligence (Art. 3-8 AMLA), duty to report (Art. 9 AMLA), training obligation (Art. 8 AMLA) are to be sanctioned (Art. 45 para. 1 of the Statutes).
In the case of negligently committed breaches, a warning may be issued instead of a fine or a sanction may be waived (§55 para. 2 of the Regulations). In the case of minor breaches, which can also be remedied in short-term (max. 30 days), no sanction proceedings shall be raised as a rule. However, an offending member shall be instructed in writing and given a deadline to remedy the breach.
The following sanctions may be imposed: Warning, fine of CHF 300.- up to 1'000'000.-, threat of exclusion and exclusion (§45 para. 2 of the Statutes and §54 para. 1 of the Regulations).
Intentional breaches shall in any case be punished by a fine. Procedural costs, adjudication and administrative fees may be imposed in conjunction with the sanctions (§45 para. 4 and 5 of the Statutes).
Where necessary and possible, the sanction shall be combined with a request to restore the orderly and lawful situation within a maximum period of three months. The request may also be combined with instructions and requirements concerning the internal organisation of the financial intermediary (§54 para. 2 of the Regulations).
The assessment of a fine shall be based on the severity of the breach, the degree of fault and the economic capacity of the member. Parallel state measures and/or penalties do not prevent the internal sanction of the association. However, they shall be taken into account in a mitigating manner if the combination of penalties would be unreasonably harsh (§55 para. 1 of the Regulations).
Exclusion may be imposed in the event of breaches of the association's duties or obligations under the AMLA, the Regulations or the Statutes, if the offending member fails to restore the legal, regulatory or statutory situation within a set period of time or in the event of repeated breaches (§56 para. 1 of the Regulations).
A member will be excluded if it no longer fulfils the requirements for retaining membership (see question F.3), in particular – but not only – if it no longer offers any guarantee of proper business activity in terms of personnel or organisation and fails to restore the proper state of affairs within a set period of no more than three months (§56 para. 2 of the Regulations).
In §2 para. 2 of the Statutes, SRO PolyReg also requires its members to provide legally and ethically impeccable financial services of high quality. The legal irreproachability is assessed on the basis of the (expected) compliance with all laws and regulations relevant to the financial market. Breaches of such provisions may also lead to exclusion under certain circumstances.
A member must be excluded if it has breached important provisions of the AMLA, namely the duty to report, intentionally or through gross negligence (§56 para. 4 of the Regulations). Exclusion shall also be effected if the member can no longer be contacted by the association or the arbitration tribunal, or directly in the event of non-payment of outstanding debts owed to the association (see question F.5).
In any case of exclusion or threat of exclusion, additional financial penalties may be imposed (§56 para. 5 of the Regulations; see question H.3).
The procedure begins with the member being notified of the institution of the proceedings in writing (delivered by registered mail). The notification shall state the allegations and the possible sanction. In addition, the member is given a deadline to respond to all points (allegations, threatened sanction and its extent) in writing.
After receipt of the statement or after unused expiration of the deadline for the statement, the executive committee decides on the imposition of a sanction. In doing so, it shall take into account any arguments put forward by the member, which it however evaluates at its own discretion (see question H.7).
Once a decision has been made, the member shall be sent a written statement of the reasons for the decision by registered mail. All sanction decisions can subsequently be referred to the PolyReg Arbitration Court (§ 37 para. 1 of the Statutes and §59 of the Regulations). The Arbitration Court decides disputes between members and SRO PolyReg finally (see question D.13).
Appeals against exclusions, which have been pronounced due to non-payment of outstanding debts owed to the association following a registered reminder with threat of exclusion, shall only be dealt with by the Arbitration Court to a limited extent (cf. §36 para. 5 of the Statutes).
If sanction proceedings are brought against a member which could end in exclusion from SRO PolyReg, the decisions on the opening and conclusion of the proceedings shall be notified to FINMA (Art. 58 para. 1 of the Regulations).
If the proceedings are directed against a person subject to professional secrecy, the board delegation shall ensure that professional secrecy is maintained by appropriate means (anonymisation of documents, etc.) (§58 para. 2 of the Regulations).
The purpose of SRO PolyReg includes enforcing compliance with the due diligence obligations of the AMLA and, in addition, verifying whether its members provide legally and ethically impeccable financial services of high quality (cf. §2 para. 2 of the Statutes). This is in line with FINMA's consistent practice over many years, according to which the breach of other financial market regulations also calls into question the good reputation of the financial intermediary and thus the guarantee of compliance with the due diligence obligations.
SRO PolyReg does not exercise prudential supervision over its members and does not bring such supervision into play through the back door when it pursues breaches of §2 para. 2 of the Statutes. The sanction proceedings of SRO PolyReg and the measures based on them are primarily preventive in nature and aim primarily at restoring a proper state of affairs. Sanction proceedings of SRO PolyReg however do not have punitive character.
The principle of "in dubio pro reo" represents a rule in evaluating evidence for criminal court judges. However, decisive for the institution of sanction proceedings is the question whether there is sufficient initial suspicion. Then the case must be investigated officially by the board or the executive committee analogous to the provisions of administrative law (see art. 12 and 13 APA), and the decision to be made is based on the due conviction of the judging body. Therefore, the principle of "in dubio pro reo" does not apply (which does not apply for administrative proceedings any way, which results e contrario from art. 6 para. 2 ECHR), but rather that of the free assessment of evidence (in analogy with art. 19 APA in conjunction with art. 40 of the Federal Act of 4 December 1947 regarding the federal civil procedure BZP; SR 273).
Therefore, SRO PolyReg is not bound by certain rigid rules of evidence, which stipulate how it must arrive at its decisions, how a valid proof is established and what evidentiary value the individual pieces of evidence have in relation to each other (see BGE 130 II 482 E. 3.2; BVGE of 3 August 2007, C-1170/2006, E. 6.1).
In addition, sanction proceedings of SRO PolyReg take due account of the presumption of innocence and the principle of art. 8 of the Civil Code, since they maintain the guarantee of the right to be heard for the concerned parties and the decision of imposing sanctions or not is only made after the consideration of all evidence and produced arguments; furthermore, such decisions must – if necessary – be able to stand up to revision by the statutory Arbitration Court.
Thus, the institution of sanction proceedings does not constitute a prejudgement and does not violate the presumption of innocence. Its purpose is to demonstrate to the members in detail the accusations brought against them and to notify them of the possible sanction so that the members can avail themselves of their right to be heard.
After all, the principle of free consideration of evidence demands that the ruling body forms its opinion with due diligence, conscientiously and without prejudice as to whether the facts to be proven are considered true or not. Proof is established if the consideration of evidence leads to the conclusion that the legally relevant fact is real (BGE 114 II 289 E. 2a; BGE 105 Ib 114 E. 1a).
With regard to the evaluation of internal matters of a member, SRO PolyReg has the right to draw conclusions regarding unknown facts (result of presumption), based on known facts (base of presumption). Such factual presumptions can be made in all areas of the application of law, particularly in public law. They are probable conclusions, drawn by means of life experience (BGE 130 II 482 E. 3.2 with references; BVGE of 3 August 2007, C-1170/2006, E. 6.1).
In addition to sanctions, investigation costs and the expenses for rulings and copying can be imposed (§45 para. 4 and 5 of the Statutes). The calculation of the expenses for rulings is based on the provisions of the Court Fees Ordinance of the Cantonal High Court in Zurich of 8 September 2010.
The arbitration officer shall be responsible for directing the course of the proceedings up to the point at which the written grounds of appeal and the response to the appeal have been presented and the Arbitration Court has been constituted he subsequent conduct of the proceedings shall then be determined by the Court (§38 para. 3 of the Statutes). The then chosen arbitrators are independent of the association (non-members) and must have professional expertise.
In particular, the arbitration officer must set the relevant deadlines and warn the parties of the consequences of failing to meet them, as well as to collect the registration fee. The arbitration officer may dismiss or adjourn appeal proceedings for procedural reasons where the relevant grounds arise prior to the constitution of the Arbitration Court (for example, failure to present the grounds of appeal within the deadline, failure to pay the registration fee, withdrawal of the appeal, decision not to proceed with the appeal, review and simultaneous lifting of the disputed decision by the Board, bankruptcy of an appellant member, purposelessness, etc.). In such cases, the fees for the appeal proceedings and the adjudication of the process reimbursement may be waived or decided upon by the arbitration officer (§38 paragraph 2 of the statutes; see question H.13).
The procedure for arbitration is set out in detail in §38 of the Statutes.
An appeal to the Arbitration Court usually has a suspensive effect. This means that the sanction decision does not become legally binding until the Arbitration Court has reached a final decision.
In urgent cases, however, the Board may withdraw the suspensive effect of the appeal and take precautionary measures. Such orders of the Board shall be subject to (separate) review by a sole arbitrator, drawn by lot for this specific purpose (§12 para. 4 of the Statutes).
A withdrawal of the suspensive effect of an arbitration appeal against an exclusion decision has the effect that an excluded member must either cease its financial intermediary activities or join another SRO within two months.
In general, the suspensive effect is withdrawn in application of §12 para. 2 of the Statutes if an orderly supervision of the member to be excluded cannot or can no longer be considered guaranteed.
Among various conceivable situations, this is particularly to be feared if the member's activity runs counter to the requirements and provisions of the law, the Statutes and the Regulations and if, due to the fundamental nature of an identified irregularity, there is no prospect that a lawful state of affairs can be brought about within a useful period of time - be it, because this would force the member to cease its professional activity, or because the member evades the supervision of SRO PolyReg, for example by not allowing itself to be inspected, or because the member actively opposes instructions from SRO PolyReg, or because an activity which has already been recognised as unlawful elsewhere is being continued unlawfully in this country.
On the other hand, any appeal against the fixed amount of costs and fees always has a suspensive effect.
An appellant member shall, on demand by the arbitration officer, pay a registration fee as follows:
CHF 500.00, where only a fee is at issue;
CHF 1,000.00, where a sanction is at issue;
CHF 2,000.00, where non-admission/exclusion is disputed.
The Arbitration Court may, after it has been constituted, impose further deposit payments on an appellant member and, in the event of default, decide that the appeal be dismissed. The amount of the deposit shall be based on the estimated costs of the Arbitration Court and any disputed outstanding costs of the association. In the event of a default in payment of the registration fee or a further deposit, no grace period shall be granted (cf. §38 para. 7 of the Statutes).