Swiss AML rules and real estate: the complete 2026 reform guide

Since October 1, 2026, certain real estate consulting activities performed professionally on behalf of third parties are subject to the Swiss Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). Independent brokers, agencies, and certain developer activities may be affected. However, neither the stated profession nor the amount of a sale is sufficient to determine whether one is subject to the Act.

The correct method involves distinguishing between the professional's activity, the transaction, the exceptions, and the applicable obligations. This guide examines these elements, providing a threshold table, twenty practical case studies, a roadmap, and an FAQ.

Information current as of October 5, 2026. This general presentation does not constitute individual legal advice: specific situations must be examined with a Swiss specialist and, if applicable, the competent self-regulatory organization.

1. A confirmed reform, but not blanket regulatory coverage

The reform is the result of the amendment to the AMLA of September 26, 2025, and its implementing provisions. FINMA confirms the entry into force on October 1, 2026.

According to Article 2, paragraph 3bis, of the AMLA, consultants include natural and legal persons who participate professionally, on behalf of third parties, in financial transactions, including the organization of funds, in connection with the sale or purchase of real estate.

The reform also targets certain operations involving legal entities: creation, management, administration, contributions, distributions, or transactions meeting legal conditions. Article 2, paragraph 3ter, also concerns the professional provision of an address or premises as a domicile or registered office for more than six months.

The actual activity takes precedence over the professional label. Therefore, brokerage, purchase consulting, marketing, domiciliation, and financial services must be examined separately. A single company may perform services that require different treatment.

Reference: Revised AMLA, Article 2, RO 2026 322.

2. Brokers, owners and developers: three distinct assessments

Independent broker and agency

Working alone, without employees or on a part-time basis, is not an exemption. The mandate must be read in conjunction with the services actually provided: negotiation, transactional advice, organization of the operation, or support contributing to its realization.

A contract titled "business referral" does not settle the issue if the professional is more deeply involved. Conversely, an advertising service does not automatically become subject to the Act simply because it relates to a property.

Private owner

Selling one’s own apartment does not, for this act alone, transform the owner into a consultant for third parties. Nevertheless, they may be required to provide supporting documents to the bank, the notary, or other parties subject to their own obligations.

Real estate developer

The company selling a project it owns is distinct from one that advises an owner or markets a property for a third party. Identifying the seller, the principal, and the role of each entity is essential.

A project company is not automatically non-operational: its actual function counts. Services between companies within a group are excluded from the definition of a consultant by Article 2, paragraph 3, letter a, of the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance (AMLO), when the situation effectively falls under this provision.

The analysis is performed activity by activity and entity by entity, with an additional examination if the professional handles third-party funds.

3. Participating in the transaction without holding the funds

Article 12d of the AMLO targets any consulting that contributes causally to a legal operation in connection with a financial transaction mentioned in the AMLA.

Negotiation, structuring, preparation of transactional documents, or organization of a payment may be relevant. These are not automatic triggers for subjection: the concrete role, the operation, and the exceptions must be assessed together.

The absence of the sale price passing through the broker's account does not, by itself, exclude the consultant regime. Reducing the reform to the handling of money would miss its scope.

Simply broadcasting an advertisement is distinct from active networking or transactional support. General advice unrelated to a specific operation is also distinct from a service contributing to a precise sale. The mandate and the file’s correspondence must be sufficient to explain this qualification.

4. The trigger point: do not automatically wait for the notarial deed

Article 12e, paragraph 3, of the AMLO specifies that advice regarding the purchase or sale of real estate is subject to the AMLA as soon as the parties have declared their intention to conclude a sales contract, provided that no exception under Article 2, paragraph 4ter, of the AMLA applies.

An initial viewing, prospecting, or a standalone valuation should therefore not be confused with this stage. However, systematically waiting for the signing of the authentic deed may be too late.

Practical recommendation: organize a qualification meeting when the parties' intentions become clear, keep records that allow this stage to be dated, and gather the required information before proceeding with the regulated service.

Article 12e also covers certain acts that produce the same economic effects on the power to dispose of real estate, as well as the creation of a usufruct or a building right for consideration. Ordinary leasing is not, in itself, a sale; domiciliation or associated financial services are analyzed separately.

5. When advisory work is carried out commercially: four alternative criteria

Article 12f of the AMLO first sets a general criterion: an independent economic activity oriented toward obtaining a sustainable income. It then provides for four criteria that establish professional status in all cases.

Clients and transactions are listed in the same letter b. For assets and volumes, the text refers to what the advisor must presume by exercising due diligence; it is not limited to funds that they hold.

A single criterion is sufficient. The terms "more than" and "exceeds" are strict. However, being exactly at or below the threshold does not neutralize the general criterion of sustainable income.

Gross revenue is neither net profit nor the price of the real estate. Whether the activity is primary or secondary is not decisive. Paragraph 3 also provides a specific rule for activity carried out by related persons, to be read in conjunction with other legal exceptions.

Crossing a threshold establishes professional status, not the subjection of every file. The nature of the activity and exceptions must always be examined.

6. CHF 5 million: two mechanisms, two questions

The first mechanism concerns the professional: advice involving third-party assets exceeding CHF 5 million at any given time can establish their professional status.

The second concerns the transaction: Article 2, paragraph 4ter, letter b, of the AMLA excludes certain transfers of real estate or legal entities with a value less than CHF 5 million, provided that the price is paid and received exclusively by banks or other financial intermediaries subject to the law as referred to in the text.

An agency can therefore be professional while still handling operations that benefit from an exception. At exactly CHF 5 million, the strictly "less than" value exception does not apply. Above that, another exception may still be relevant.

It is just as incorrect to say "everything is subject above CHF 5 million" as it is to say "nothing is subject below it." For lots, linked contracts, or multi-stage operations, ensure the definition of the transfer and its value is validated rather than assuming that a contractual split automatically changes the regulatory regime.

7. The main real estate exceptions

Transfers below CHF 5 million

Value and the price payment circuit must be verified cumulatively: the price must be paid and received exclusively by the targeted intermediaries. A partial cash payment prevents this exception from being applied on this basis.

"The notary handles the payment" does not by itself document all the conditions. Down payments, third-party payers, and atypical circuits require verification. A foreign bank should not be equated with an intermediary subject to Swiss AMLA without analysis.

Housing for personal use in Switzerland

The law excludes the purchase of residential property for personal use in Switzerland and certain replacement purchases within the meaning of the tax reference. This exception does not set a CHF 5 million ceiling.

The text refers to "personal use." Reducing it without nuance to only mean "primary residence" or extending it to any housing owned by a private individual would be imprecise. Rental investment is not automatically personal use; mixed-use properties require analysis.

Family and Other Transactions

Article 2, paragraph 4ter, specifically targets certain transactions related to family, matrimonial law, successions, donations, or between legally related persons. It also mentions certain agricultural transfers to the operators themselves, land consolidations, activities of corporate bodies of operational entities, foundations for cause of death, and authentications without accessory advice.

Justifying an exception is preferable to simply checking a box. A memo and the relevant supporting documents constitute best practice. Exclusion from the examined regime does not erase criminal law, sanctions, or the specific obligations of other parties involved.

Reference: Revised AMLA, Article 2, paragraph 4ter.

8. Advisory services and financial intermediation: distinct regimes

Financial intermediation existed before the reform. According to Article 2b of the AMLA, the same activity falling under both regimes is governed by the provisions applicable to financial intermediaries.

A person performing both types of services must therefore examine their respective rules. Receiving third-party assets, power over an account, or associated financial services may require a distinct qualification.

The rationale of "real estate sale under CHF 5 million" is not sufficient to analyze a service involving the management of third-party funds. This distinction is important for groups combining brokerage, management, structuring, and development.

9. Due Diligence: Identify and Understand

Article 8b of the AMLA provides for the verification of the client's identity, the identification of the beneficial owner, and the establishment and retention of documents. The object and purpose of the transaction or service must also be identified.

For a company, understanding who represents it and with what power complements identification. The contractual client, the signatory, and the beneficial owner are not necessarily the same person. A chain of companies requires an understanding of ownership and control according to the applicable rules.

A holding company or a foreign company is not illicit by nature. Opacity, inconsistencies, or the impossibility of obtaining required information are, however, points of attention.

If risks justify it, the advisor must clarify the background and purpose of the transaction: economic coherence, financing, and the role of the parties involved. The origin of the purchase funds is distinct from the general origin of the assets. Supporting documents depend on the risk and the modalities of the SRO; the law does not prescribe the same maximum dossier for every client.

10. Risks, Organization, and Record Retention

Article 8c provides for due diligence adapted to the risk of the client, the transaction, or the service. The SROs specify simplified and enhanced measures. Unexplained third-party payers, opaque structures, incoherent pricing, or pressure to bypass verifications may justify clarifications.

An indicator is not proof of money laundering. Facts must be assessed without automatically equating a nationality or an international structure to an offense. A bank and a long-standing business relationship do not replace the advisor's own obligations.

Article 8d mandates an organization that prevents money laundering, terrorist financing, and violations of coercive measures based on the Embargo Act, including training and controls.

For an agency, proportionate implementation may include:

• A designated person in charge and an escalation procedure.
• Documented qualification of mandates and exceptions.
• Identification rules and a risk matrix.
• A procedure regarding suspicions and the MROS.
• Adapted training and internal controls.

This list is a recommendation, not a guarantee of compliance. Article 8b refers to Article 7: retention in principle for ten years after the termination of the business relationship or the end of the transaction. Documents must allow for the reconstruction of verifications.

Identity documents and financial records must remain accessible only to authorized persons, in an organization compliant with data protection laws. They must not be distributed with ordinary commercial files.

11. Reasonable grounds for suspicion: the duty to report to MROS

Article 9, paragraph 1ter, obliges the advisor to immediately inform the Money Laundering Reporting Office (MROS) when the legal conditions are met.

A founded suspicion is based, in particular, on a concrete sign or several indices that clarifications fail to dispel, according to the definition applicable by analogy to advisors. One must not wait for a criminal conviction.

Refusing a mandate or terminating negotiations does not automatically eliminate this obligation. The law expressly targets negotiations terminated due to well-founded suspicions.

Article 10a, paragraph 5, prohibits informing the persons concerned or third parties that a report has been made, subject to categories that the law does not consider as third parties. Article 11a regulates the information to be transmitted to MROS upon request.

The advisor regime is not the same as the blocking of assets for financial intermediaries. Article 9b, paragraph 2bis, allows the advisor who has made a report to terminate the relationship at any time. Mixed activities and professional secrets of lawyers or notaries require a specific analysis.

Reference: Revised AMLA, articles 9, 9b, 10a and 11a.

12. SRO affiliation: dates and restrictions to know

Advisor already active as of October 1, 2026

The transitional provision of the AMLO requires an application for affiliation before December 1, 2026. To organize the filing without ambiguity, keep the November 30 deadline in mind, while anticipating the required documents.

The application must be submitted, but does not necessarily need to be accepted by this date. Confirm the requirements with the SRO and retain proof of submission.

Until the decision is reached, advisory activity may only be continued within the framework of existing business relationships. The filing does not freely authorize new clients for regulated services. Due diligence and organizational measures apply as soon as they enter into force when their conditions are met: the affiliation deadline does not postpone them.

Financial intermediary already under supervision

Advisory activity must be announced to the competent authority or body. For institutions falling under its supervision, FINMA describes an announcement via EHP by December 1, 2026; for an intermediary affiliated with an SRO, this body is the point of contact.

Therefore, not all brokers must use EHP or file for an initial affiliation. Taking the step before December 1 avoids depending on a more permissive interpretation of administrative summaries.

Activity becoming professional at a later date

Article 12g AMLO provides for the immediate application of the targeted obligations, followed by an application or announcement within two months of the change in status. Until affiliation, existing clients may continue to be advised and entrust new mandates.

Without action within the prescribed deadline or in the event of a refusal of affiliation, the pursuit of the targeted advisory activity is prohibited. The SRO supervises its members; FINMA recognizes and supervises the SROs. Affiliation is not a general certification of real estate services.

References: AMLO and transitional provisions, FINMA and ARIF.

13. Twenty practical cases

These examples isolate a specific point of reasoning and do not replace a full review of the mandate.

14. A roadmap for agencies and developers

1. Map out. Inventory the services and identify the signatory entity as well as the one actually intervening. Separate own-account activities from services provided to third parties.

2. Qualify. Document the role, professionalism, transaction, trigger point, exceptions, and potential financial intermediation. Have borderline cases validated.

3. Organize the SRO process. Confirm the point of contact, documentation, timeline, and conditions for continuing mandates. Plan for training and monitoring without assuming a uniform tariff.

4. Adapt the client journey. Progressively collect information, assign responsibilities, and provide for validation before continuing a regulated service. Explain documentation requests without disclosing a report to the MROS.

5. Verify implementation. Review a simple file, an excluded file, and a complex file. The team must be able to justify decisions and retrieve documents; this internal check does not replace SRO audits.

15. FAQ: Frequently Asked Questions

Are all brokers now subject to these rules?

Not automatically just because of their profession. Activity, professionalism, transaction, stage, and exceptions must be examined.

Can I wait until I reach CHF 50,000 in revenue?

No. Sustainable income and other thresholds can establish professionalism earlier, which does not resolve every file on its own.

Is a bank payment sufficient?

No. The specific exception implies, among other things, a value of less than CHF 5 million and a price paid and received exclusively through the targeted intermediaries.

Does the notary replace my checks?

No, not automatically. Each party must examine their own status; the presence of a notary does not prove all conditions of an exception.

Is own use limited to CHF 5 million?

This exception does not provide for this ceiling. However, own use in Switzerland must be established.

Does the November deadline postpone due diligence?

No. It concerns transitional affiliation and does not suspend the material obligations applicable as of October 1st.

Must every complex file be reported?

No. Complexity and well-founded suspicion are distinct. One must clarify and apply the legal conditions; refusing a mandate does not exempt one from this examination.

Is a project company always non-operational?

No. Its actual function and legal definition count, not just its name or ownership of a building.

16. The stakes for the Geneva real estate market

The reform imposes a method: being able to explain who you are acting for, what you are doing, at what point, why an exception applies or does not, and how obligations are fulfilled.

Compliance is neither a simple price threshold nor a copy of an identity document. It is based on a proportionate organization and the ability to identify situations requiring specialized analysis.

To prepare for a sale, acquisition, or development, discover the real estate services of OAKS GROUP SA in Geneva. For your AMLA (LBA) obligations, consult a Swiss legal specialist or the competent SRO (OAR). This guide does not present OAKS GROUP SA as an AMLA supervisory or certification body.

Sources and Verification Date

Information current as of October 5, 2026. Legal texts and instructions from the authority or the competent SRO take precedence over editorial summaries.

• Fedlex: Revised AMLA (LBA), RO 2026 322, particularly articles 2, 2b, 8b to 8d, 9, 9b, 10a, 11a, and 14.
• Fedlex: Consolidated AMLA (LBA), RS 955.0, particularly article 7.
• Fedlex: AMLO (OBA), RS 955.01, status as of October 1, 2026, particularly articles 2, 12d to 12g, and transitional provisions.
• FINMA: Entry into force of the revised AMLA and AMLO.
• ARIF: New advisors under the AMLA, practical insights from an SRO.
• BDO: Advisory activities now subject to the AMLA, complementary analysis.

The practical cases and the roadmap are for educational purposes. They do not constitute a determination of regulatory status nor a validation of compliance for any specific file.