[ad_1]
The sinister secret meetings at the Nobelhotel Schweizerhof in Bern must also have consequences for FIFA chief Gianni Infantino. This is clear to criminal law experts such as former Basel Police Commander Markus Mohler.
There are people who say that the Bern prosecution should initiate criminal proceedings against the head of FIFA, Infantino, due to the secret meeting at the “Schweizerhof”.
Markus Mohler: I share this opinion.
In your opinion, what is the specific suspicion?
There is an urgent suspicion that Mr. Infantino may have committed the crimes to instigate abuse of office, violation of official secrecy and favoritism.
Where does the suspicion of incitement come from?
Numerous reports in the media and in the supervisory authority’s disciplinary decree on the federal prosecutor’s office AB-BA indicate that Mr. Infantino, through Valais public prosecutor Rinaldo Arnold, has repeatedly sought discussions with US Attorney Michael Lauber.
Inciting office abuse, how does it work?
Mr. Infantino’s meetings with the Federal Prosecutor should have been kept secret. Therefore, contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they were not registered. What was discussed remains “secret” or unclear. It is not on file contrary to regulations. This led to a verdict from the Federal Criminal Court, confirmed by the Federal Court, according to which the Federal Prosecutor was partial and had to withdraw from the soccer process.
Incitement to breach of official secrecy?
Without the wishes of Mr. Infantinos to meet the Federal Prosecutor through Arnold several times, these meetings would not have taken place. Since, as AB-BA also stated, these were ongoing criminal proceedings and Arnold, as a private person, was present at Infantinos at the request, instigating the violation of official secrecy, and this in itself! – already taken.
To benefit?
For various reasons, Infantino obviously had an eminent interest in directing the proceedings in the football context that had been carried out up to that point in a certain direction. Otherwise, the meetings would not have been so urgent. And he would also know who was fifth at the fourth meeting in Bern and what it was about. But this is “collective amnesia”. At first, this is very incredible. Also notable is the case against the “unknown” proceedings against UEFA, which the Federal Prosecutor’s Office terminated: it concerned a controversial contract for UEFA’s television rights, which Mr Infantino had signed. Therefore, there is a suspicion that he could have benefited from the federal prosecutor.
Why does the Canton of Bern have to take action?
According to the aforementioned reports, the crime scene of the instigation is mainly the canton of Bern, which is why the prosecution is responsible for the investigation in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure. Cantons are required to prosecute criminal offenses under federal law unless there is federal jurisdiction. This is the case in this case, because instigation is not subject to federal jurisdiction.
However, the Bern prosecutor’s office does not see sufficient suspicions upon request: “The actual evidence of a criminal offense required to open a criminal investigation must be of a substantial and concrete nature; simple rumors or assumptions are not sufficient.”
As I said, it is no longer just rumors or conjecture. Furthermore, there is sufficient suspicion “to suppose … if there are signs of a criminal offense, that is, if there is a certain probability of criminal behavior.” This follows from articles 107 and 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. To be read in all scientific comments. It is up to the prosecutor and, if necessary, the courts to determine whether the suspicion is justified, whether a crime has been committed or not. Doing nothing from the beginning is not possible.
The Bern public prosecutor also says that the only thing that is important to AB-BA is to appoint an extraordinary federal public prosecutor.
This is not the Federal Prosecutor, but the President of FIFA. AB-BA is the supervisory authority over the federal prosecutor’s office, not over Mr. Infantino. Therefore, the local prosecutor is directly responsible for initiating proceedings for crimes that Mr. Infantino may have committed “with some probability”.
If the criminal justice system does not take action, are there other ways to start this process?
These are official crimes. The prosecution must act on its own initiative, which is also required by the Code of Criminal Procedure.
By the way, anyone can file a complaint in accordance with the Code of Criminal Procedure.
For a long time you were a prosecutor, a Basel police commander, a university professor, colonel. What is wrong here in the Swiss criminal justice system?
It is difficult to say what is the cause of the procedures that “go wrong”, as you say. In the case of the Federal Prosecutor’s Office, I suspect a serious lack of good faith in the actors involved. This was also manifested in Mr. Lauber’s behavior towards the supervisory authority. Good faith, Article 9 of the Federal Constitution, that is, honesty, are fundamental, among other things, for a good judiciary, for the rule of law in general.
Note
Markus Mohler has a doctorate in law and a well-known police expert. The Basler was a prosecutor, Basel-Stadt police commander, and professor of public law.
