Any Swiss marketplace that accepts customer funds on its own platform account – even temporarily – may be holding public deposits within the meaning of the Banking Act (BankA). From this point, 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 regulatorily 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 blank check, where the line runs between technical payment flow and legal money flow, 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 they are forwarded to the actual sellers. The marketplace collects the funds, deducts its commission, and periodically transfers the remainder to the individual Comerciantes.

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 lie – even for hours – on an account that does not belong to the final payee, a legal responsibility for these funds arises.

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

2. Why "holding briefly" is not automatically unproblematic

Many marketplace operators argue that they only temporarily hold 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 (BO) provides for an exception in Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BO: credit balances on client accounts that serve solely to settle client transactions are not considered 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 strictly. It requires that the funds are used exclusively for settlement – not for intermediate financing, not as security, and 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 period is regularly maxed out, the exception no longer applies.

The problem of commercialism

In addition, the question of commercialism applies: 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 commercial activity is lower than many SMEs suspect: it is usually reached with as few as 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

The technical flow is about how data and payment instructions flow between systems: the buyer enters their payment details, the payment API processes the transaction, and 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 marketplace's account, the marketplace has actual power of disposal – regardless of what its T&Cs say. 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 EUR 5,000 from the customer. Technically, everything runs via an API. However, the money lies in the marketplace's company account for 14 days before the craftsman is paid. 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 according to BankA

In Swiss law, public deposits mean: funds accepted from an indefinite number of people. 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 "balances", "wallets" or "trust accounts".

The FinTech license (Art. 1b BankA)

The FinTech license under Art. 1b BankA has existed since 2019. It allows the commercial acceptance of public deposits up to a maximum of EUR 100 million, provided these are neither invested nor interest-bearing. Institutions with a FinTech license are subject to direct FINMA supervision, must be organized as a public limited company (AG), partnership limited by shares, or limited liability company (GmbH), and have their registered office in Switzerland. The minimum capital is EUR 300,000 or 3% of the accepted deposits.

The FinTech license was created to enable innovative business models to have regulated market access below a full banking license. For a marketplace operator who merely wants to settle 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 BO) exists: anyone who accepts public deposits totaling no more than EUR 1 million, does not invest them, does not 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 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 operating a marketplace, their own FinTech license or even a banking license is neither realistic nor sensible. The reasons are diverse:

Costs: The minimum capital for a FinTech license alone is EUR 300,000. On top of this are costs for the licensing process (FINMA fees, external consultants, audit firm), ongoing supervision costs, and the establishment of a compliance organization. Realistic total costs for the first year range from EUR 500,000 to over EUR 1 million.

Time required: The licensing process with 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 bearable for a team of five to ten people.

AMLA subordination: In addition to the license, the acceptance of third-party funds usually triggers subordination 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 organization (SRO). SRO membership, for example at VQF, costs around EUR 2,000 in admission fees plus ongoing annual fees and audit 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 for doing so. 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 at the PSP: the platform commission goes to the account of the marketplace, and 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 worth EUR 150. The marketplace charges a 10% commission. At checkout, the customer pays via the PSP. This automatically splits the payment: EUR 15 goes to the marketplace (commission), and EUR 135 goes directly to the Comerciante. The money never flows through an account of the marketplace.

Regulatory Classification

Since the marketplace does not accept customer funds, the licensing requirement under the BankA is generally omitted. Also, AMLA subordination is typically not given with a clean design, as the marketplace does not act as a financial intermediary. The compliance burden lies with the PSP, which in turn is regulated and handles the KYC obligations for the sub-Comerciantes.

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 payee – your marketplace or the seller? Only if the seller receives directly, the deposit risk is eliminated.

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

• Are funds held temporarily – and if so, for how long? The 60-day exception (Art. 5 para. 3 lit. c BO) is to be interpreted strictly.

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

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

• What is the expected transaction volume? Above EUR 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 made to sellers – 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 chargebacks.

How to 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 handles the division of payments, the KYC onboarding of sub-Comerciantes, 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 generally eliminates the licensing requirement under the BankA and AMLA subordination – the regulatory complexity lies with the regulated partner.