Customer funds in the platform account: What Swiss marketplaces must legally consider

Anyone operating a Swiss marketplace who accepts customer funds into their own platform account – even 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 requirements of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) apply. The most regulatorily secure alternative for SMEs is a split payment model via a licensed Payment Service Provider (PSP), where 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?

A platform account is understood to be 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 comerciante:innen.

This model is operationally simple: Una cuenta bank relationship, a single settlement. But it is precisely this simplicity that makes it problematic from a regulatory perspective. Because as soon as customer funds sit – even for just a few hours – in an account that does not belong to the ultimate payee, a legal responsibility towards these funds arises.

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

2. Why "holding briefly" is not automatically unproblematic

Many platform operators argue that they only hold customer funds temporarily 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 an exception in Art. 5 para. 3 let. c BankO: Credit balances on customer accounts that serve solely for the settlement of client transactions are not considered deposits – provided 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, and not as operational cash flow for the marketplace. As soon as the marketplace uses the funds even partially for its own purposes or the 60-day period is regularly stretched to its limit, the exception no longer applies.

The problem of commercial operation

In addition, the question of commercial operation arises: As soon as a marketplace accepts third-party funds on a regular and planned basis, it is acting commercially 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 assume: It is typically reached with as few as 20 depositors or through public advertising for the acceptance of funds.

3. Technical payment flow vs. legal money flow

In practice, the technical payment flow and the legal money flow often differ fundamentally – and this is precisely where regulatory risks arise.

Technical flow

The technical flow is about how data and payment instructions move between systems: The buyer enters their payment details, the payment API processes the transaction, and settlement occurs into a defined target account. Technically, this process can be designed in any way.

Legal money flow

The legal money flow, on the other hand, asks: Who has the legal power of disposal over the funds at what point in time? If the money initially lands in the marketplace's account, the marketplace has actual power of disposal – regardless of what its terms and conditions state. 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 craft services collects EUR 5’000 from the customer. Technically, everything runs via an API. But the money sits in the marketplace's business account for 14 days before the tradesperson is paid out. During these 14 days, the marketplace is holding third-party funds – with all regulatory consequences.

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

Public deposits under BankA

Under Swiss law, public deposits means: 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 towards customers – regardless of whether they are referred to as "credit", "wallet", or "escrow account".

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 corporation (AG), partnership limited by shares, or limited liability company (GmbH), and must 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 give innovative business models regulated market access below the 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, there is the so-called sandbox exception (Art. 6 para. 2 BankO): Anyone who accepts public deposits totaling no more than EUR 1 million, neither invests them nor pays interest on them, and informs depositors in writing that there is no FINMA supervision and no deposit insurance, is not acting commercially and does not require a license. However, this threshold is quickly exceeded for most marketplaces with relevant transaction volume.

Comparison: Regulatory thresholds and licenses

5. Why SMEs usually do not want their own license

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

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

Time commitment: 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 feasible for a team of five to ten people.

AMLA subordination: In addition to the license, accepting third-party funds generally leads to subordination under the Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA). Anyone providing payment services on a professional basis is considered a financial intermediary pursuant to Art. 2 para. 3 AMLA and must join a self-regulatory organization (SRO). SRO membership, for example with the VQF, costs around EUR 2’000 in admission fees plus ongoing annual dues and audit costs. The due diligence requirements (KYC, documentation, reporting obligations to MROS) represent additional operational overhead.

The central 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). With split payment, the buyer's payment is split directly at the PSP: The platform commission goes to the marketplace's account, and the remaining amount flows directly to the seller. The marketplace never touches the customer funds at any time.

How does split payment work specifically?

An example: On a marketplace for regional products, a customer orders goods for EUR 150. The marketplace charges a 10% commission. At checkout, the customer pays via the PSP. The PSP splits the payment automatically: EUR 15 goes to the marketplace (commission), EUR 135 goes directly to the comerciante:in. The money never flows through an account belonging to the marketplace.

Regulatory classification

Since the marketplace does not accept customer funds, the licensing requirement under BankA generally does not apply. Subordination under AMLA is also typically avoided with a clean setup, 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-comerciante:innen.

Comparison: Platform account vs. Split payment

7. Checklist: What you should check before launching

Before equipping 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 funds directly is the deposit risk eliminated.

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

• Are funds held temporarily – and if so, for how long? The 60-day exception (Art. 5 para. 3 let. c BankO) must be interpreted narrowly.

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

• Do you operate a wallet or credit balance model? Balances in a user account can be classified as public deposits.

• How high 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 to sellers executed – automatically or manually? Manual payouts increase holding time and therefore risk.

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

How you can process 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-comerciante:innen, and payouts – including support for TWINT, PostFinance, credit cards, and QR-bill.

Marketplace operators define 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 BankA and AMLA subordination – the regulatory complexity remains with the regulated partner.