Does Swiss Penal Code recognize 'Conspiracy' as crime or not?

Question

In U.S. if two persons speak on the phone "let's explode a car" and government records it, they can sue you as a conspiracy act. This behavior is the same on the Switzerland country and under Swiss Penal Code? Thanks!

In the USA, if two persons agrees to explode a car, this agreement is itself a crime and can be punished, even if none took any step to start it.
‎State of California, requires that at least one of the parts of the agreement initiate the actions to the illegal activity.
‎
‎My question is....
‎Does Swiss Penal Code consider this agreement a crime itself, or they require proof of the crime to charge the parts of conspiracy?

Answer 1

First, almost certainly yes. Most countries have laws against conspiracy. It's pretty fundamental.

That said, conspiracy is more than saying 'let's explode a car.' It is planning, not just idle talk. Here is a definition:

"A combination or confederation between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing, by their joint efforts some unlawful or criminal act ..." From Black's law dictionary.

This is something I looked up on the web which compares and contrast Swiss, German and English (US) law:

"The description of criminal preparation in German law is mainly confined to some forms of attempted accomplishment. The most important forms are (attempted) incitement (versuchte Anstiftung) and conspiracy (Verabredung). These forms of attempted accomplishment can only be punished if the intended offence is a severe one.
The fourth chapter concerns the Swiss criminal law. The concepts of criminal liability and participation in Swiss and German law are almost identical. The law on criminal attempts in Swiss law is more subjective. In Swiss law, the boundary between preparation and attempt is drawn at an early point, in comparison with Dutch and German law.
The Swiss law on criminal preparation provides an excellent opportunity for comparison with the Dutch law. Article 260bis of the Swiss penal code (StGB) resembles an earlier Dutch draft bill. It penalises some acts of preparation, aimed at a limited group of violent offences. Despites it’s remarkably wide range, it attempts to keep the penalisation of preparation restricted to acts which are close to the stage of execution of the intended offence. This prevents an extension of criminal liability to very early acts of preparation. Chapter 5 is about criminal liability in English law. The English criminal law system, which is formed by both common law and statutory law, is highly different from the continental systems. It is, in particular, less dogmatic and more pragmatic.
In English criminal law, a distinction is made between primary parties (perpetrators) and secondary parties (accomplices). This distinction is, however, of minor practical importance. Another major difference between continental and English criminal law regards mens rea. The distinction between the most important mens rea in the continental law systems mentioned in this book − ‘opzet’ (Vorsatz) and ‘culpa’ (fahrlässigkeit) − is drawn in all three in almost the same way. The distinction between the most important mens rea in English law – intention and recklessness – differs from the continental approach. The word ‘intention’ in English law requires a higher standard of certainty depending on to the risk taken by the defendant, than the equivalent words ‘opzet’ and ‘Vorsatz’ in the other countries. These differences have great importance for the mens rea in the inchoate offences.
English criminal law contains three inchoate offences: attempt, incitement and conspiracy. The mainly subjective rationale of the attempt in English criminal law has only little influence on the distinction between attempt and mere preparation. Conspiracy is the main ground for punishment of acts of preparation in English law. According to the ‘Criminal Law act 1977’, conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons, that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily involve the commission of an offence." http://dissertations.ub.rug.nl/faculties/jur/2003/p.smith/

Answer 2

1