Vincenz can hope for a lighter sentence in Supreme Court

So now it’s time for the lawyers’ desk, the 1200-page written decision of the Zurich District Court in the Vincenz & Co case, a detailed reason for Pierin Vincenz (66) and Beat Stocker (62) to go to jail for years.

Lots of reading material for lawyers and jurists, full of countless details: for example, on the credibility of former Raiffeisen President Johannes Rüegg-Stürm (62), who has been threatened with possible criminal prosecution since Switzerland during his interrogation. The Financial Markets Supervisory Authority (Finma) was investigating the processes at the bank that came under the spotlight during the Vincenz era. On the other hand, the court repeatedly praised the former Raiffeisen boss for his job at the bank, stating that Rüegg-Stürm was “trying not to burden Vincenz unnecessarily”. Another detail: a former aide to Vincenz’s has repeatedly refused to testify as an informant.

Blick reviews and categorizes the decision together with law professor Peter V. Kunz (57).

What is the general impression of the decision of the first instance court?
A positive one. “The decision is very well written in terms of craftsmanship,” says Kunz. But make a very poor impression, especially when it comes to legal consideration. And as for how the actions of Vincenz and his partner Beat Stocker broke the law.

What did the court do well?
The so-called facts are detailed in nearly 900 pages. “It is now easy to understand why the court considered participation in companies and tried to hide those participations from the relevant employers as relevant under criminal law,” explains Kunz. This shows that the prosecutor’s office did a good job in the preliminary investigation on which the court bases its decision.

Where are the weak points?
“For me, this is a questionable decision,” Kunz says. This means that the court raised the suspicion that Vincenz and Stocker were cooperating in their own interests and to the detriment of their employers. There is a lot of evidence to read in the decision that the credibility of the main defendant, Vincenz, has been questioned for pages. “But I don’t have clear evidence to justify such a high sentence,” Kunz says. It should be applied: “In case of doubt for the accused.”

What are the lawyers of the defendants doing now?
Lawyers for the main defendants will scrutinize the verdict and appeal to the Supreme Court in Zurich by the end of January. Objective: Complete acquittal for Vincenz and Stocker. Something to do quickly on its own.

Why do lawyers still need all January?
This relates to the fact that they must also submit requests for additional evidence during this time. Lawyers control whether some witnesses will be questioned again or whether additional witnesses will be questioned. From the lawyers point of view, ideally orally at the hearing before the Supreme Court.

What’s next?
The Supreme Court will review the claims and then decide whether to make a judgment based on the files or whether to hold a new hearing in the Vincenz case. A second-degree court decision is not expected this year.