No winner yet in Vincenz trial: Tone remains sober – but the substantive arguments are fiercer

The appeal trial of former Raiffeisen CEO Pierin Vincenz has entered a new phase, with the focus shifting from his lavish spending to the core of the allegations: controversial company acquisitions. While the public interest remains high, the current proceedings at the Zurich High Court are characterized by a notably sober and factual tone, a stark contrast to the first trial four years ago, which was held in a larger venue and sometimes resembled a public spectacle.

“

The former Raiffeisen CEO undertook a 'Tour de Suisse through the red-light district.'

Prosecutors are seeking a six-year prison sentence for Vincenz, arguing that he and his business partner, Beat Stocker, exerted "decisive influence" over transactions involving company purchases. The key issue, according to chief prosecutor Marc Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel, revolves around the concept of "retrocessions" – reimbursements for received commissions, common in banking. The prosecution contends that Vincenz and Stocker were obligated to hand over profits from these deals to their employers, Raiffeisen and the credit card company Aduno, because they failed to disclose their involvement.

This legal argument hinges on the Federal Court's rulings in several cases, which have established that such undisclosed profits constitute a form of retrocession. The prosecution emphasizes that it is irrelevant whether Raiffeisen or Aduno suffered direct financial damage from these acquisitions. The crucial point is the alleged failure to disclose and the subsequent retention of profits by Vincenz and Stocker.

“

Vincenz and Stocker exerted 'decisive influence' over these transactions but did not disclose their stakes.

The defense, meanwhile, likely contests these interpretations of financial transactions and disclosure obligations. The shift in focus from Vincenz's personal spending, which dominated the first trial, to the intricate details of corporate deals signifies a more technical and legally focused battle. The outcome of this appeal will hinge on the court's interpretation of financial regulations, disclosure requirements, and the specific nature of the transactions involved.

“

It is irrelevant whether financial damage occurred to the employers of Vincenz and his business partner.