If a Swiss marketplace accepts customer funds into its own platform account – even only temporarily – it may be holding public deposits within the meaning of the Banking Act (BankG). From this point, the licensing obligations of the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) and the due diligence obligations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) apply. For SMEs, the most regulatorily safe alternative 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 automatically a free pass, where the line between a technical payment flow and a legal flow of funds lies, and what alternatives Swiss SMEs have.

1. What is a platform account?

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

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

Swiss law has a precise term for this: public deposits. And their acceptance is generally permitted only with authorisation under Art. 1(2) BankG.

2. Why ‘short holding’ is not automatically unproblematic

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

The 60-day exemption and its limits

The Banking Ordinance (BankV) provides an exception in Art. 5(3)(c) BankV: credit balances on customer accounts used 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 it must be interpreted narrowly. It requires that the funds serve exclusively for settlement – not for bridge financing, not as collateral, not as the marketplace's operational cash flow. As soon as the marketplace uses the funds even in part for its own purposes or regularly pushes the 60-day period to the limit, the exception falls away.

The issue of commercial operation

In addition, the question of commercial operation applies: as soon as a marketplace regularly and systematically accepts third-party funds, it acts commercially within the meaning of the BankG. The FINMA circular 2008/3 'Public deposits held by non-banks' specifies the criteria. The threshold for commercial operation is lower than many SMEs assume: it is generally reached from as few as 20 depositors or public advertising for the acceptance of funds.

3. Technical payment flow vs. legal flow of funds

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

Technical flow

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

Legal flow of funds

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

A concrete example: a marketplace for craftsman services collects CHF 5,000 from the customer. Technically everything runs through an API. But the money sits for 14 days in the marketplace's business account before the craftsman 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 licence?

Public deposits under BankG

Public deposits means in Swiss law: funds received from an unspecified number of persons. Art. 1(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', 'wallet' or 'trust account'.

The FinTech licence (Art. 1b BankG)

Since 2019, the FinTech licence under Art. 1b BankG has existed. It permits the commercial acceptance of public deposits of up to CHF 100 million, provided 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 accepted.

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

The sandbox exemption

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

Comparison: regulatory thresholds and authorisations

5. Why SMEs usually do not want their own authorisation

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

Costs: The minimum capital for a FinTech licence alone amounts to CHF 300’000. In addition, there are costs for the authorisation process (FINMA fees, external advisers, audit company), ongoing supervision costs and the establishment of a compliance organisation. Realistic total costs for the first year are CHF 500’000 to over CHF 1 million.

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

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

AML Act applicability: In addition to authorisation, accepting third-party funds usually results in applicability of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG). Anyone providing payment services professionally is deemed to be a financial intermediary under Art. 2(3) GwG and must join a self-regulatory organisation (SRO). For example, SRO membership with VQF costs around CHF 2,000 entry 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 doing so. No one should have to build a quasi-bank for that.

6. Alternative: PSP split payment

The most regulatorily safe 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 account, the remaining amount flows directly to the seller. The marketplace never touches the customer funds at any time.

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

Since the marketplace does not accept customer funds, the licensing requirement under BankG generally does not apply. Nor is there usually any AML Act applicability if the structure is properly implemented, as the marketplace is not acting 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 launch

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 fall away.

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

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

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

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

• How high is the expected transaction volume? Above CHF 1 million, the sandbox exemption 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 holding time and thus risk.

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

How to handle customer funds in compliance with Payrexx

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

The marketplace operator defines its commission logic via the API or the dashboard and can charge its own transaction fees without touching customer funds itself. As a result, the licensing requirement under BankG and the AML Act applicability generally fall away – the regulatory complexity lies with the regulated partner.