Anyone who, as a Swiss marketplace, receives customer funds into its own platform account—even if only temporarily—may be holding public deposits within the meaning of the Banking Act (BankG). 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 (GwG) 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 automatically harmless, where the line between a technical payment flow and a legal money flow lies, and what alternatives Swiss SMEs have.

1. What is a platform account?

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

Operationally, this model is simple: one bank connection, one settlement. From a regulatory perspective, however, this very simplicity makes it problematic. Because as soon as customer funds—even if only for hours—are held in an account that does not belong to the final recipient, a legal responsibility arises in relation to those funds.

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

2. Why “holding briefly” 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 exemption in Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BankV: credit balances on customer accounts that are used solely for the processing of customer transactions are not considered deposits—provided that no interest is paid on them and the processing period of 60 days is not exceeded.

This exemption sounds appropriate, but it must be interpreted narrowly. It requires that the funds be used exclusively for processing—not for interim financing, not as collateral, not as the marketplace’s operating cash flow. As soon as the marketplace uses the funds even partially for its own purposes, or regularly pushes the 60-day period to its limit, the exemption no longer applies.

The issue of commercial nature

In addition, the question of commercial nature arises: as soon as a marketplace regularly and systematically receives third-party funds, it acts on a commercial basis within the meaning of the BankG. The FINMA Circular 2008/3 “Public Deposits by Non-Banks” specifies the criteria. The threshold for commercial nature is lower than many SMEs assume: it is generally reached from as few as 20 depositors or from 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 exactly where regulatory risks arise.

Technical flow

In the technical flow, the focus is on how data and payment instructions move between systems: the buyer enters payment data, the payment API processes the transaction, and settlement takes place to a defined destination 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 over it. In theory, it could use the funds differently. And it is precisely this control that triggers regulatory obligations.

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

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

Public deposits under the BankG

Public deposits means in Swiss law: funds received from an indefinite 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 referred to as a “balance,” “wallet” or “escrow account.”

The FinTech licence (Art. 1b BankG)

Since 2019, the FinTech licence has existed under Art. 1b BankG. It allows the commercial acceptance of public deposits up to a maximum of CHF 100 million, provided that they 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, limited partnership 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 give innovative business models regulated market access below the level of a full banking licence. For a marketplace operator that merely wants to process payments between buyers and sellers, however, it is usually disproportionately burdensome.

The sandbox exemption

For very small volumes, there is the so-called sandbox exemption (Art. 6 para. 2 BankV): anyone who receives public deposits totaling no more than CHF 1 million, does not invest them or pay interest on them, and informs depositors in writing that there is no FINMA supervision and no deposit protection, does not act commercially and does not need a licence. 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 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 alone for a FinTech licence amounts to CHF 300,000. In addition, there are costs for the licensing process (FINMA fees, external advisors, audit firm), ongoing supervision costs and the setup of a compliance organisation. Realistic total costs for the first year are between CHF 500,000 and over CHF 1 million.

Time required: The FINMA licensing 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), 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 applicability: In addition to the licence, receiving third-party funds generally results in applicability of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG). Anyone providing payment services on a professional basis is considered a financial intermediary under Art. 2 para. 3 GwG and must join a self-regulatory organisation (SRO). For example, SRO membership at the VQF costs around CHF 2,000 in admission fees plus ongoing annual contributions 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 regulatorily safest solution for Swiss marketplaces is a split payment model via a licensed Payment Service Provider (PSP). In split payment, the buyer’s payment is split directly by the PSP: the platform commission goes to the marketplace account, and the remaining amount flows directly to the seller. The marketplace does not touch 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 worth CHF 150. The marketplace charges a 10% commission. At checkout, the customer pays via the PSP. The PSP automatically splits the payment: CHF 15 go to the marketplace (commission), CHF 135 go directly to the merchant. The money never passes through a marketplace account.

Regulatory classification

Since the marketplace does not receive customer funds, the licensing requirement under the BankG generally does not apply. AMLA applicability is also typically not given when the structure is properly designed, because the marketplace does not act as a financial intermediary. The compliance burden lies with the PSP, which is itself regulated and handles the KYC obligations for the sub-merchants.

Comparison: platform account vs. split payment

7. Checklist: What you should check before starting

Before equipping 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 cease to apply.

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

• Are funds stored in the interim—and if so, for how long? The 60-day exemption (Art. 5 para. 3 lit. 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.

• Do you operate a wallet or credit balance model? Credit balances on a user account may qualify 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 reviewed legally? An individual legal assessment is advisable for every model that touches customer funds.

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

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

How to handle customer funds in compliance with regulations 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-bill.

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. This generally removes the licensing requirement under the BankG and the AMLA applicability—the regulatory complexity lies with the regulated partner.