Pierin Vincenz and his accomplice now have to go to prison

It was too much for the judges of the Zurich Higher Court. The indictment against the former Raiffeisen boss Pierin Vincenz and his co -defended included 356 pages, plus an attachment with another 100 pages, on which 930 footnotes were listed with references to the process files. Instead of dealing with the first instance judgment as a second instance, the chief judges rejected the proceedings back to the public prosecutor. Wrongly, as the Federal Supreme Court ruled.

The indictment is partly excessive, contained unnecessary repetitions and detailed references. In the overall assessment, she assumes “the character of an inadmissible plea”, the higher court had complained. This should thus be rejected by the indictment and new submission to the district court to the public prosecutor.

Rejection was in the sense of the main accused

Especially for the two main accused Pierin Vincenz and his closest ally Beat Stocker, who had been sentenced to three years and nine months or four years in prison, the rejection appeared as a stroke of luck because the statute of limitations of their deeds approached.

The public prosecutor has filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court, which in its 40-page judgment now largely shares the view of the criminal investigators. The federal judges explain to the address of the Higher Court: « The severity and the actual and legal complexity of the crimes accused of the seven accused require a significantly more detailed indictment. »

A rejection to the public prosecutor violates federal law

In the specific case, the indictment also had to reproduce the perspective of private plaintiffs so that they can assert their point of view in court. A “comprehensive description” is also even indicated. The detail is also in favor of the accused, who have to find out from the indictment of how the public prosecutor's office legally recognizes their behavior. It is therefore not true that she has the character of a plea.

A rejection that the higher court demands would violate federal law would violate the Federal Supreme Court: The higher court must therefore deal with the case in terms of content.

There is no entitlement to complete translation

The co-accused Stéphane Barbier-Mueller had also submitted a complaint, who saw his legal hearing due to a lack of translation-a view that the higher court also shared. The Federal Supreme Court clarifies: « There is no entitlement to full translation of all procedural acts or the files. »

It is also important for the federal judges that the suspect was defended by two German -speaking lawyers who had chosen himself. In addition, Barbier-Mueller completed school education in Germany and studied law. Even if he denied that knowledge of German knowledge is « at the level of maturity », he is allocated « basic knowledge of this national language ». This means that he was “easily possible and reasonable” to identify deviations from the indictment with his defenders himself. This makes it possible for him to effectively defend himself.

Now the ball is back at the Zurich High Court. However, years will probably be passed until a legally valid conclusion of the criminal proceedings.