Anyone who accepts customer funds as a Swiss marketplace into its own platform account – even only temporarily – may be holding public deposits within the meaning of the Banking Act (BankG). From this point on, the licensing obligations of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and the due diligence obligations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) apply. The regulatorily safest alternative for SMEs is a split payment model via a licensed Payment Service Provider (PSP), in which the customer funds never touch the marketplace.

This guide explains what a platform account is, why short holding periods are not a free pass, where the line between technical payment flow and legal money flow lies, and which alternatives Swiss SMEs have.

1. What is a platform account?

A platform account is a bank account opened in the name of the marketplace operator and into which payments from buyers are received before they are forwarded to the actual sellers. The marketplace collects the funds, deducts its commission, and transfers the remainder periodically to the individual merchants.

This model is operationally simple: one bank connection, one settlement. But this very simplicity makes it problematic from a regulatory point of view. Because as soon as customer funds – even for only a few hours – are held on an account that does not belong to the final payee, a legal responsibility towards those funds arises.

Swiss law has a precise term for this: public deposits. And accepting them is generally only permitted with authorisation under Art. 1 para. 2 BankG.

2. Why "holding funds briefly" is not automatically unproblematic

Many platform operators argue that they only store customer funds for a few days and therefore are not regulated. This assumption is too narrow.

The 60-day exception and its limits

The Banking Ordinance (BankV) provides an exception in Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BankV: credit balances on customer accounts that serve solely to process customer transactions are not deemed deposits – provided that no interest is paid on them and the processing period of 60 days is not exceeded.

This exception sounds suitable, but it must be interpreted narrowly. It requires that the funds serve exclusively for processing – not for interim financing, not as security, not as the marketplace's operating cash flow. As soon as the marketplace uses the funds even partly for its own purposes or regularly makes full use of the 60-day period, the exception no longer applies.

The issue of commercial activity

In addition, the question of commercial activity applies: as soon as a marketplace regularly and systematically accepts third-party funds, it acts on a commercial basis within the meaning of the BankG. The FINMA Circular 2008/3 "Public Deposits at Non-banks" specifies the criteria. The threshold for commercial activity is lower than many SMEs assume: it is generally already reached from 20 depositors or public advertising for the acceptance of funds.

3. Technical payment flow vs. legal money flow

In practice, the technical and legal payment flows often differ fundamentally – and that is exactly where regulatory risks arise.

Technical flow

In the technical flow, the question is how data and payment instructions move between systems: the buyer enters their payment data, the payment API processes the transaction, and settlement is made to a defined target account. Technically, this process can be designed in any way.

Legal money flow

The legal money flow, by contrast, asks: who has legal control over the funds at what point in time? If the money first lands in the marketplace's account, the marketplace – regardless of what its terms and conditions say – has actual control. In theory, it could use the funds differently. And it is exactly this control that triggers regulatory obligations.

A concrete example: a marketplace for craft services collects CHF 5,000 from the customer. Technically, everything runs via an API. But the money sits for 14 days in the marketplace's company account before the craftsman is paid out. During those 14 days, the marketplace holds third-party funds – with all regulatory consequences.

4. What are public deposits – and what is the FinTech licence?

Public deposits under the Banking Act

Public deposits means, in Swiss law, funds received from an unspecified number of persons. Art. 1 para. 2 BankG prohibits the commercial acceptance of public deposits without a banking licence. The term covers all liabilities towards customers – regardless of whether they are described as "credit balances", "wallet" or "trust account".

The FinTech licence (Art. 1b BankG)

Since 2019, the FinTech licence under Art. 1b BankG has existed. It allows the commercial acceptance of public deposits up to a maximum of CHF 100 million, provided that these are neither invested nor interest-bearing. Institutions with a FinTech licence are subject to direct FINMA supervision, must be organised as a public limited company, partnership limited by shares or limited liability company, and must have their registered office in Switzerland. The minimum capital is CHF 300,000 or 3% of the deposits received.

The FinTech licence was created to enable innovative business models to access a regulated market below a full banking licence. For a marketplace operator that merely wants to process payments between buyers and sellers, however, it is in most cases a disproportionately high effort.

The sandbox exception

For very small volumes, there is the so-called sandbox exception (Art. 6 para. 2 BankV): anyone who accepts public deposits totalling no more than CHF 1 million, neither invests them nor pays interest on them, and informs the depositors in writing that there is no FINMA supervision and no deposit protection, does not act on a commercial basis and does not need authorisation. However, this threshold is quickly exceeded for most marketplaces with relevant transaction volumes.

Comparison: Regulatory thresholds and licences

5. Why SMEs usually do not want their own licence

For most Swiss SMEs that operate a marketplace, their own FinTech licence or even a banking licence is neither realistic nor sensible. The reasons are varied:

Costs: Just the minimum capital for a FinTech licence is CHF 300,000. In addition, there are costs for the authorisation process (FINMA fees, external advisors, audit firm), ongoing supervision costs and the set-up of a compliance organisation. Realistic total costs for the first year are between CHF 500,000 and over CHF 1 million.

Time: The FINMA authorisation process usually takes six to twelve months. During this time, the marketplace cannot operate as planned.

Ongoing obligations: A licensed institution must operate an internal control system (ICS), appoint an audit firm, report regularly to FINMA and maintain risk management – requirements that are hardly manageable for a team of five to ten people.

AMLA subjection: In addition to the licence, accepting third-party funds usually results in subjection to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). Anyone who provides payment services on a professional basis is considered a financial intermediary under Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA and must join a self-regulatory organisation (SRO). An SRO membership costs at VQF, for example, around CHF 2,000 admission fee plus ongoing annual fees and audit costs. The due diligence obligations (KYC, documentation, reporting obligations to MROS) mean additional operational effort.

The key point: a marketplace operator wants to enable transactions between buyers and sellers and earn a commission for it. Nobody should have to build a quasi-bank for that.

6. Alternative: PSP split payment

The regulatorily safest solution for Swiss marketplaces is a split payment model via a licensed Payment Service Provider (PSP). With split payment, the buyer's payment is split directly by the PSP: the platform commission goes to the marketplace's account, the remaining amount flows directly to the seller. The marketplace never touches the customer funds at any point.

How does split payment work in practice?

An example: on a marketplace for regional products, a customer orders goods for CHF 150. The marketplace charges 10% commission. At checkout, the customer pays via the PSP. The PSP splits the payment automatically: CHF 15 go to the marketplace (commission), CHF 135 go directly to the merchant. The money never flows through a marketplace account.

Regulatory classification

Because the marketplace does not accept customer funds, the authorisation requirement under the BankG usually no longer applies. An AMLA subjection is also typically not given in a properly structured model, as the marketplace does not act as a financial intermediary. The compliance burden lies with the PSP, which is regulated in its own right and takes over the KYC obligations for the sub-merchants.

Comparison: platform account vs. split payment

7. Checklist: What you should check before starting

Before you equip your marketplace in Switzerland with a payment solution, clarify the following points:

• Who is the legal payee – your marketplace or the seller? Only if the seller receives directly does the deposit risk no longer apply.

• Do customer funds run through your own company account? If yes: check whether a licensing requirement under Art. 1 para. 2 BankG exists.

• Are funds stored in between – and if so, for how long? The 60-day exception (Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BankV) must be interpreted narrowly.

• Who verifies the identity of the sellers (KYC)? If you do the KYC yourself, you may be a financial intermediary under AMLA.

• Are you operating a wallet or credit balance model? Credit balances on a user account can qualify as public deposits.

• How high is the expected transaction volume? Above CHF 1 million, the sandbox exception no longer applies.

• Have you had the model legally reviewed? An individual legal assessment is recommended for every model that touches customer funds.

• How are payouts to sellers made – automatically or manually? Manual payouts increase the holding period and thus the risk.

• Who bears the risk for refunds and chargebacks? Clarify whether you or the PSP handles the reversal.

How you can process customer funds compliantly with Payrexx

Payrexx offers a marketplace payment solution based on the split payment principle. As a Swiss Payment Service Provider (PSP), Payrexx takes over the splitting of payments, KYC onboarding of sub-merchants and payouts – including support for TWINT, PostFinance, credit cards and QR invoice.

Via the API or the dashboard, the marketplace operator defines its commission logic and can charge its own transaction fees without touching customer funds itself. This usually removes the need for authorisation under the BankG and the AMLA applicability – the regulatory complexity lies with the regulated partner.