Raiffeisen: Pierin Vincenz wants to avoid public litigation

Pierin Vincenz wants to avoid a public trial, and this is how it works

The former Raiffeisen boss is apparently seeking a deal with the prosecutor; The Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure has a special procedure for this since 2011.

Daniel Zulauf / CH Media

The game of cat and mouse is over. The evidence is on the table and the opinions of the Zurich prosecutor’s office have largely been voiced. Pierin Vincenz and Beat Stocker, the two main suspects in the Raiffeisen scandal, are likely to be charged.

Fraudulent business management and perhaps even fraud: State investigators have been investigating these suspicions for more than two years, and it is expected that at least the general public has found abundant incriminating material.

Now, however, people close to the process are spreading the word that the two alleged white-collar criminals are trying to evade the judge before their last major public appearance and have asked the prosecutor for a so-called “shortened procedure.”

The public does not receive any details.

This option has existed in the Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure for ten years. The idea: the accused makes a confession and agrees with the prosecutor and the plaintiffs civil parties a sanction or payment of damages. No legal process is necessary for this. A judge rejects the agreement and the public is briefly informed of its content.

Should Vincenz be allowed to leave the big stage through this back door? He, of all people, who in his heyday as a coach also liked to take a political stance, criticized the secrecy of the Swiss bankers and possibly played a bad double game?

And how does a closed-door “deal” fit with the so-called principle of citizenship, which in turn is established in the Federal Constitution and which underlines the importance of the control function of citizens and the media for the good functioning of the judiciary?

The importance of the principle of public disclosure for the control of the judiciary by the rule of law is demonstrated by the fact that the law only provides for very few exceptions to the principle. For example, in cases involving children and young people and therefore a particularly high level of protection of personal rights should be applied.

Goal: speed up complex cases

Of course, there were and are good reasons for introducing the abbreviated procedure at that time. Highly complex economic crimes then, as now, immobilized considerable resources, not only but especially in the Zurich prosecutor’s office.

Investigating large cases takes years, and sometimes short statutes of limitations hang like the sword of Damocles over prosecutors. The investigation of the Swissair case lasted more than four years. The investigation into the bankruptcy of Erb, Winterthur’s car trade dynasty, lasted more than five years, and the fraud of 200 million Swiss francs at the Bank Leumi in Zurich was only accused in 2006, six years after the start of the investigation.

Expedited procedures can speed up the completion of such cases and improve the efficiency of law enforcement. However, whether these advantages justify the weakening of the publicity principle is a matter of judgment, to which there is no absolutely right or wrong answer.