Anyone who, as a Swiss marketplace, accepts customer funds into their own platform account - even if only temporarily - may be holding public deposits within the meaning of the Banking Act (BankA). From this point on, the licensing requirements of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and the due diligence obligations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) apply. The regulatory safest alternative for SMEs is a split payment model via a licensed Payment Service Provider (PSP), where 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 what alternatives Swiss SMEs have.

1. What is a platform account?

Under a platform account, one understands a bank account that is held 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: a single bank connection, a single settlement. However, it is precisely this simplicity that makes it problematic from a regulatory perspective. Because as soon as customer funds - even if only for hours - lie in an account that does not belong to the final payment recipient, a legal responsibility towards these funds arises.

Swiss law has a precise term for this: public deposits. And accepting them is, according to Art. 1 para. 2 BankA, generally only permitted with a license.

2. Why "keeping it short" is not automatically unproblematic

Many marketplace operators argue that they only temporarily store customer funds for a few days and are therefore not regulated. This assumption falls short.

The 60-day exception and its limits

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

This exception sounds suitable, but is to be interpreted narrowly. It assumes that the funds serve exclusively for settlement - not for intermediate financing, not as collateral, not as operational cash flow of the marketplace. As soon as the marketplace uses the funds even partially for its own purposes or the 60-day limit is regularly stretched to its limit, the exception no longer applies.

The problem of commercialism

In addition, the question of commercialism comes into play: as soon as a marketplace regularly and systematically accepts third-party funds, it acts on a commercial basis within the meaning of the BankA. The FINMA Circular 2008/3 "Public deposits with non-banks" specifies the criteria. The threshold for commercialism is lower than many SMEs suspect: it is usually reached from just 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 this is precisely where regulatory risks arise.

Technical flow

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

Legal money flow

The legal money flow, on the other hand, asks: who has legal power of disposal over the funds at what point in time? If the money first lands in the account of the marketplace, the marketplace - regardless of what its T&Cs say - has actual power of disposal. It could theoretically use the funds differently. And it is precisely this power of disposal that triggers regulatory obligations.

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

4. What are public deposits - and what is the FinTech license?

Public deposits under the BankA

Public deposits mean in Swiss law: funds accepted from an indefinite number of persons. Art. 1 para. 2 BankA prohibits the commercial acceptance of public deposits without a banking license. The term covers all liabilities to customers - regardless of whether they are referred to as "credit", "wallet" or "trust account".

The FinTech license (Art. 1b BankA)

Since 2019, the FinTech license under Art. 1b BankA 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 license are subject to direct FINMA supervision, must be organised as a public limited company, partnership limited by shares or limited liability company, and have their registered office in Switzerland. The minimum capital is CHF 300'000 or 3% of the accepted deposits.

The FinTech license was created to give innovative business models regulated market access below a full banking license. For a marketplace operator who 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, the so-called sandbox exception (Art. 6 para. 2 BankO) exists: anyone who accepts public deposits of no more than CHF 1 million in total, does not invest or pay interest on them, and informs depositors in writing that there is no FINMA supervision and no deposit insurance, does not act commercially and does not require a license. However, this threshold is quickly exceeded for most marketplaces with relevant transaction volumes.

Comparison: Regulatory thresholds and licenses

5. Why SMEs usually do not want their own license

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

Costs: The minimum capital for a FinTech license alone is CHF 300'000. Added to this are costs for the licensing process (FINMA fees, external consultants, audit firm), ongoing supervisory costs, and setting up a compliance organisation. Realistic total costs for the first year are between CHF 500'000 and over CHF 1 million.

Time required: The licensing process at FINMA 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), mandate 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 license, accepting third-party funds usually triggers subjection to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). Anyone who provides payment services on a professional basis is deemed to be a financial intermediary according to Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA and must join a self-regulatory organisation (SRO). SRO membership at VQF, for example, costs around CHF 2'000 admission fee plus ongoing annual fees and auditing costs. The due diligence obligations (KYC, documentation, reporting obligations to MROS) mean additional operational effort.

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

6. Alternative: PSP Split Payment

The regulatory 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 at the PSP: the platform commission goes to the marketplace's account, while the residual 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 a 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 an account of the marketplace.

Regulatory classification

Since the marketplace does not accept customer funds, the licensing requirement under BankA is usually waived. An AMLA subjection is also typically not given with clean structuring, since the marketplace does not act as a financial intermediary. The compliance burden lies with the PSP, which is itself regulated 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 legally the payment recipient - your marketplace or the seller? Only if the seller receives directly, the deposit risk is eliminated.

• Do customer funds run through your own corporate account? If yes: check whether a licensing requirement according to Art. 1 para. 2 BankA exists.

• Are funds temporarily stored - and if yes, for how long? The 60-day exception (Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BankO) is to be interpreted narrowly.

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

• Do you operate a wallet or credit 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 any 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 take over reverse processing.

How to process customer funds in compliance with regulations using 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, the KYC onboarding of sub-merchants, and payouts - including support for TWINT, PostFinance, credit cards and QR-bill.

The marketplace operator defines their commission logic via the API or the Dashboard and can charge their own transaction fees without touching customer funds themselves. This usually eliminates the licensing requirement according to BankA and the AMLA subjection - the regulatory complexity lies with the regulated partner.