Roughly ten months later, the nightmare begins: the corporation, having acquired other companies, suddenly demands payment for a service that no longer exists. You submit formal objections, explain that the contract was terminated and the service stopped — but you are ignored. Instead, you receive payment reminders demanding settlement "to ensure uninterrupted operations." Your company is subjected to two abusive debt collection actions within a year — for a service that was intentionally shut down.

Despite multiple formal complaints and registered letters from your legal insurance provider, every attempt at contact is systematically disregarded. A surreal nightmare unfolds — marked by ruthless behavior, complete silence, and coercion. These are the exact experiences we endured with Worldline.

The “creditor” had countless legal opportunities to assert its alleged claims — if they had any validity — but chose to ignore every one. No response to the legal objections, not even to the first or second formal request to prevent third-party disclosure of the debt collection notice.

Only after a full year — when the evidence request under Article 73 of the Swiss Debt Enforcement Act was submitted to the enforcement office — did Worldline, which we were then forced to pursue legally for damages (as shown in the collection order citing over one million CHF), withdraw one of the claims. The other was officially deleted by the authorities (link).

The ignorance displayed by Worldline Switzerland AG continued even after legal steps were initiated. The financial damage, time loss, and extreme stress caused by these scandalous practices are hard to quantify.

Criminal Complaint, Legal Action – and No Justice

On November 16, 2023, immediately after submitting our mediation request, we received a phone call from a representative of the opposing party.

Under the guise of an apology, an employee of Worldline attempted to pressure us psychologically. Reading between the lines, the message was clear: as a small company, we stood no chance against a multibillion-dollar corporation — we were advised to simply give up.

This calculated intimidation — combined with two proven cases of abusive debt enforcement — clearly constituted coercion under Article 181 of the Swiss Criminal Code. We not only felt threatened but deliberately pushed into an economic and psychological corner. That same day, we filed a criminal complaint.

Even before that, one thing was clear: On April 29, 2021, the Swiss Federal Supreme Court (ruling 6B_28/2021) explicitly stated that an abusive enforcement of a claim can meet the definition of criminal coercion — especially when used to exert pressure or manipulate behavior.

Anyone who initiates enforcement proceedings interferes directly and deeply with another person’s economic freedom. If that interference lacks valid justification, it is not only morally wrong but legally punishable.

In our case, two abusive debt enforcements were initiated by a corporation that refused all communication, ignored legal remedies, and publicly discredited us. Combined with the threatening call, this paints a clear picture of deliberate intimidation — intended to silence us and force us to abandon legal action.

The response from the public prosecutor's office was sobering: The criminal complaint for coercion against Worldline Switzerland AG was not even admitted for investigation .

Despite substantial evidence, documented harm, and clear reference to the Supreme Court ruling (6B_28/2021), the prosecution concluded there was "insufficient indication" of criminal coercion. While the two enforcement actions may have been unjustified, they were — in the prosecutor’s view — neither abusive nor intentionally harassing.

The rationale? In Switzerland, debt enforcement requires no prior court approval — even a false claim can be filed without consequence. The financial damage and later withdrawal of both claims were not seen as signs of misconduct, but were dismissed as a "possible accounting error."

In doing so, the prosecution not only ignored the submitted evidence but also disregarded the Supreme Court’s clear position: a debt enforcement becomes coercion when it is abusive. That a powerful corporation can file unjustified claims twice, block all communication, and face zero consequences sends a disturbing message: If you’re big enough, you can get away with anything — and the legal system looks the other way.

The Appeal to the Higher Court

We refused to accept the public prosecutor’s inaction and filed an appeal with the Higher Court of the Canton of Aargau .

However, the Higher Court also declined to initiate an investigation — despite complete documentation, verifiable damages, and solid legal arguments. The case was dismissed without even reviewing the facts.

Their reasoning: It was merely a civil dispute between business partners. The debt enforcement actions were deemed “not clearly” abusive — even though Worldline invoiced for canceled services, ignored all communication, had payment reminders sent by third parties, and ultimately withdrew both claims without explanation.

The fact that Worldline initiated two enforcement proceedings — without evidence, without dialogue, in defiance of documented objections — was not interpreted by the court as deliberate intimidation. Even a threatening phone call was downplayed.

The court did acknowledge that debt enforcement can cause financial harm — but ruled out any intent, tactic, or malicious purpose. In short: two abusive actions, zero accountability, no consequences — and still no investigation.

What’s especially troubling: the court’s view directly contradicts the ruling of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court clearly stated that an abusive debt enforcement action can constitute criminal coercion — especially when used to apply pressure or deliberately harm someone’s creditworthiness.

According to lex4you.ch (based on Supreme Court ruling 6B_28/2021), debt enforcement is a criminal offense if it lacks a legitimate basis and is used solely as a tool of pressure. That is exactly what happened here — and yet it was completely ignored.

Worldline’s withdrawal of both enforcements — effectively an admission — had no legal consequences. No investigation. No accountability. No protection. Not even an attempt to correct the injustice.

Formal Errors Instead of Justice: The Federal Supreme Court’s Refusal

As a final step, we turned to the Federal Supreme Court – hoping that someone would finally take notice. Our appeal from September 16, 2024, referred to two clearly documented, abusive enforcement proceedings initiated by a corporation – acts which the Federal Court itself had previously ruled could constitute criminal coercion.

But the complaint was dismissed without any substantive review – rejected with the claim that there was insufficient proof of legal standing under Art. 81 para. 1 lit. b no. 5 BGG. The reasoning: the damage was allegedly not substantiated enough, and no civil claim was apparent.

This justification is not only incorrect – it contradicts the case file. The supporting evidence was included: Two registered letters from the legal protection insurer dated August 30 and December 1, 2022, quantifying the damages in detail at CHF 8,325.20 and confirming the basis for a civil claim. Also included was a conciliation request from November 2023, which led to formal permission to file a lawsuit. All documents were listed as evidence in the complaint, referenced in content, and submitted with the file – they were simply ignored.

This blatant disregard for key evidence forced us to submit a motion for reconsideration on December 13, 2024. We argued that the Federal Court had overlooked relevant documents, thereby violating our constitutional right to be heard (Art. 29 para. 2 of the Swiss Constitution). A clear basis for reconsideration under Art. 121 lit. d BGG.

Yet even this motion was rejected without any substantive review on February 14, 2025 – as noted in the official ruling. The court refused to hear the case, stating simply that “no legal grounds for reconsideration” existed. There was no examination of the submitted evidence, nor of the procedural complaints raised.

What remains is a shocking example of institutional denial: The highest court in the country not only ignored substantial evidence – it denied the fundamental right to be heard, even though that right was at the core of our complaint. It did not assess whether the two enforcement actions amounted to criminal coercion. It did not examine whether actual damages were proven.

Nothing was examined – not due to a lack of substance, but due to a lack of legal will.

The result: Two abusive enforcement actions, documented intimidation, multiple pieces of evidence – and not a single court willing to take responsibility. Not even the Federal Supreme Court. The outcome: a systematic denial of legal review – despite clear records, constitutional rights, and documented legal violations.

Our Conclusion: A Rule of Law with a Systemic Enforcement Deficit

Our case illustrates how easily the Swiss legal system can be exploited: A debt collection proceeding (Betreibung) can be initiated without evidence, without oversight, and without personal risk – simply by filling out a form. The state provides this powerful tool, yet does nothing when it is misused.

This opens the door wide to abuse. Even a single unfounded collection can have severe consequences – economically, personally, and in everyday life. In our case, there were two unjustified collections – despite the service having been deliberately discontinued, the contract long since terminated, and all evidence thoroughly submitted.

We responded formally and objectively – with clear evidence, comprehensible and well documented. Yet our case was never examined on its merits. Instead, facts were ignored, responsibility deflected – and wrong decisions were made. No one took responsibility.

The Federal Supreme Court, in its decision 6B_28/2021 clearly stated: A deliberately false debt collection can constitute coercion under Art. 181 of the Swiss Penal Code. In the case of the two unjustified collections by Worldline, however, this precedent was not even mentioned – let alone applied. The potential criminal offense was completely ignored.

Our case is not an isolated one. The real question is: How many others experience something similar – without being heard, without review, without consequences? Because often, a single form is enough. A name. And the system goes into motion – entirely detached from the actual facts.