Solutions

Solution · Treuhand

AI for Treuhand work, on terms you can defend

An AI agent a Swiss fiduciary can defend to clients: stored in Zurich, processed in the EU, Swiss-hosted models available, every outward action gated and logged.

monopea is an autonomous AI agent a Swiss fiduciary can defend to clients: persistent data is stored in Zurich, processing runs on EU infrastructure, Swiss-hosted open-weight models are available as the default track, and outward actions wait as pending proposals until you approve them — with every decision logged.

The Treuhand sector’s reluctance toward foreign cloud AI is not technophobia; it is professional secrecy taken seriously. Client mandates, payroll files, and tax records do not belong in a tool whose data path you cannot explain. monopea is built so the explanation is short and true.

Why the usual AI tools are a non-starter for a Treuhänder

Your obligations do not stop at good intentions. The FADP governs how client data is handled, and under the revised FADP, fines target the responsible individuals — which for a small fiduciary means the managing director personally. Pasting a client’s file into a foreign consumer chatbot is a data-handling decision you would have to own, and most Treuhänder rightly refuse to.

Autonomous agents raise the stakes further: an agent that can send email or write to records is not a drafting aid, it is an actor. In 2026 the exposed-instance incidents around self-hosted agents showed what that looks like without governance. For a profession built on discretion, the requirement is specific: know where the data sits, know which model saw it, and hold every outward action for a human.

  • Persistent data stored in Zurich, Switzerland; processing on EU infrastructure
  • Swiss track: Swiss-hosted open-weight models (Infomaniak) — inference stays in Switzerland when you choose it
  • Outward actions wait as pending proposals; the run blocks until you decide

What governed autonomy looks like in a fiduciary practice

The agent takes the recurring load: it drafts client correspondence and deadline reminders and holds each one as a proposal for your sign-off; it summarises and organises the documents you upload; it chases missing records with drafted follow-ups you approve before they send; it runs research and keeps mandate notes in long-term memory; and scheduled runs carry the month-end routine without you re-briefing it. It works through whatever tools you connect via MCP — it does not require you to change your stack.

The controls carrying the load are architectural, not promises: the approval gate is default-deny, so anything mutation-capable pauses for you; credentials sit in a write-only vault the model can never read back; residency-aware routing keeps storage in Zurich and lets you pin inference to Swiss-hosted models; and the audit trail records every proposal, approval, rejection, and dispatch against Ed25519-signed checkpoints. The EU AI Act’s Article 14 asks for human oversight as an external control rather than a prompt instruction — the proposal gate is exactly that kind of control, and it is the architecture monopea was built around.

Why it matters

A data path you can explain

Stored in Zurich, Switzerland; processed on EU infrastructure; Swiss-hosted open-weight models selectable as the default. One honest sentence, not a shrug.

Secrecy held by mechanism

Nothing outward-facing leaves without your approval, and credentials live in a write-only vault — the model never sees the values.

A record for the regulator-minded

Every proposal, decision, and dispatch is logged with signed audit checkpoints — a trail that answers "what did the AI do, and who approved it?"

FAQ

Fiduciaries, in short

Where is client data stored and processed?
Persistent data — conversations, memory, documents, encrypted secrets — is stored in Zurich, Switzerland. Processing runs on EU infrastructure. On the Swiss model track, inference runs on Swiss-hosted open-weight models, so it stays in Switzerland when you choose it.
Can the agent send anything to a client without me?
Not by default. Mutation-capable actions — an email, a record update — become pending proposals and the run blocks until you approve or reject. You can explicitly grant per-tool autonomy for routines you trust; unknown tools fail closed to review.
How does this sit with the FADP?
monopea is architected for the controls the FADP cares about — Swiss storage, gated outward actions, write-only secrets, a signed audit trail. That is an architecture claim, not a certification: formal attestations have not yet been obtained.
What work does it actually take off my desk?
Drafting client correspondence and reminders for your approval, summarising and organising uploaded documents, chasing missing records with gated follow-ups, research, and scheduled recurring runs — through the tools you connect via MCP.