Former PUK President Moritz Leuenberger: “We were seriously lied to”

Market outlook:Mr. Leuenberger, you presided over the PUK on the Kopp case. Should we congratulate or offer our condolences to the newly elected President of the PUK, Isabelle Chassot?
Moritz Leuenberger: Condolences cannot be spoken. The PUK presidency is one of the most interesting and creatively rich political posts Switzerland has to offer. Everything else is much more ingrained: as a government legislator or a federal legislator, you’re on the right track. In a PUK you stop in front of a field of fog that you have to pierce through.

Did you know right away what to do in the fog?
The first task was to determine the secretariat. Parliamentary Services has provided us with a lawyer. Then we called two investigating judges. Above all, it is important that members agree on what needs to be done and which way to go. As a result, our PUK report was accepted unanimously -without any abstentions. And this is with representatives of all parties, from the SVP to the Greens.

The special thing about your commission was that you came across something completely unexpected. The occasion was the Kopp case, you brought up the Fichen issue.
The task was to investigate a section. Money laundering, drug mafia suspicions that are said to be nesting in the Ministry of Justice were widely covered in the media.

Did the transition to the receipt area go smoothly?
This was not a turnaround. As I said, we had a very broad task: “Events at the EJPD”. We were supposed to investigate the department, but there were limits.

Which?
We encountered military aspects, espionage and secret service issues that were not within our remit. There was also a PUK affiliation with the CVP Council of States, headed by Carlo Schmid.

A CIB has more powers than, for example, a business audit committee. Is this comparable to the powers of a prosecutor?
The main purpose is to reveal the truth. The second step is to appreciate the relevant facts. However, this has nothing to do with criminal prosecution. We always emphasized that back then. We had to accept Ms. Kopp’s behavior politically and morally.

They did not make any judgments.
We did not say that Ms. Kopp broke an official secret. We told her that she called her husband and first of all he lied to the entire Federal Council and tried to blame two employees for the search she. We said: This can be criticized politically and morally. In the case of vouchers, we have decided that certain things are not legally acceptable, such as collecting personal data, refusing to be listened to or disclosing data.

At that time, they called people to give information. Did this go smoothly?
It’s okay if they’re officers. After the Federal Council removed them from official secrecy, it was possible with one or two attempts. It was more difficult to question someone from the private sector, and we sometimes had trouble with that. People generally resisted. Even the canton of Zurich told us first: This is a federal matter, it is none of our business. When we pointed out what it would mean for this stance to go public, it suddenly went away.

Could today’s PUK face such challenges?
I can’t judge on this. For example, I don’t know what it’s like when you want to interview someone who doesn’t even know how to pronounce “PYB” in New York. A public prosecutor or a police force cannot simply operate abroad.

Appreciation is another important factor. Dealing with it is probably more difficult today.
It was difficult back then. There are trade secrets, professional secrets, the privacy of those affected. And the media has a lot to do with knowing what’s going on. So we had to organize ourselves.

And how did you do that?
At our first conference, a group of journalists waited to engage our members in the conversation. So we had to pull the rope.

What have you done?
We started meeting in different, secret places. But it wasn’t just the media: we were afraid of being listened to. There was even an unconfirmed but reasonable suspicion that the federal police were tapping into our boardroom.

Where did you meet – at the hotel or in private rooms?
They were public spaces, such as a courtroom or lecture hall at a university. Another countermeasure against leaks was to engage in dialogue with journalists in simulated situations that flooded us with questions. Because the obligation to keep a secret is not just an article. It guarantees that the KYB can fulfill its mandate. Public prosecutors are also investigating without informing.

Defendants may refuse to testify. Have you ever bitten granite?
Refusal to provide information was less of a problem with us, in some cases it was tried. The danger of someone lying was much greater. In some cases we have been seriously lied to.

And how did you learn?
One person I spoke to admitted much later, after everything went against the law, that he had told us untrue things. This was a very serious case that had not come to light.

What did your PUK do?
For example, we made many recommendations for the reform of the federal prosecutor’s office. All passed by Parliament. For example, I can predict that CS-KYB will make recommendations regarding the financial markets supervisory authority.

Could the outcome of PUK in the Credit Suisse case one day serve as the basis for civil lawsuits?
Already have. However, it is quite possible to rely on the report.

They took the Presidency as the representative of the Social Democrats. This is where the rivalry with Isabelle Chassot—especially the SVP—heavily criticized, comes into play today.
After the first meeting, we did not know exactly who was in which party. This question is so inflated! If someone identifies with the task, the party does not perceive its interests.