Pierin Vincenz zeigt vor Gericht keine Spur von Reue – doch fragwürdige Tinder-Dates genügen nicht für eine strafrechtliche Verurteilung

In the trial against former Raiffeisen CEO Pierin Vincenz, the judge finds little remorse, but questions remain about his suitability for a criminal conviction. After an eight-day marathon at the Zürcher Obergericht, the arguments of both sides have been presented, and the lawyers have delivered what the prosecutors called "a diffuse all-around defeat."

Vincenz's lawyer, Lorenz Erni, dismissed the prosecutor's claims as "hype." The 70-year-old remained silent, his head resting on the table, visibly exhausted from the day-long speeches of high-profile jurists. In his final two-minute statement, Vincenz asked the court for a acquittal, stating that he could have done a few things better, but had always focused on the interests of the Raiffeisen and Aduno companies.

He had no intention of harming anyone. The outcome of this legal battle remains uncertain, as the appeal process could lead to a significantly different sentencing. The verdict is expected in the fall. In the meantime, opinions among the public are already set: Pierin Vincenz is known as the "Scandal Banker of the Nation," not Urs Rohner or Marcel Ospel.

Despite both of them causing a major collapse of a major bank, which resulted in a huge financial damage to the shareholders. However, it is primarily the former Raiffeisen CEO Vincenz who stands in front of the gallows. At the appeal trial against the Zürcher Obergericht, he did not even try to create sympathy points: He boldly claimed before the judge that his excessive expenses were always justified, such as an expensive dinner with a woman he met on the dating app Tinder.

As CEO, he also talked about personnel recruitment, explaining, "The promotion of women was close to my heart." Vincenz showed no remorse before the court. So, why is the Scandal Banker not already behind bars? The popular saying "The little ones get locked up and the big ones are left alone" comes to mind in this case. Similar opinions were voiced by Urs Rohner, the former CS-President (2011-2021), who also did not face any legal consequences.

He even retained his 50 million franc salaries and bonuses. These cases show a clear gap between public morality and criminal justice. A judge cannot make a decision based on their gut feeling. Instead, the justice system must follow the criminal code. In cases of theft, the judgment is usually easier, as a "smoking gun" is usually present.

This is not the case with economic crimes, where the paragraphs are often opaque or difficult to understand. With Vincenz's expenses, the proof is relatively simple. But when it comes to the controversial corporate deals, the prosecution has a hard time pinning down the damage caused to Raiffeisen and Aduno. The prosecution must prove fraud, which requires a sophisticated lie game, possibly involving falsified documents.

If Raiffeisen or Aduno cheated, they cannot claim victim status. The outcome of the Obergericht decision goes far beyond punishing a scandal banker. It shapes future corporate governance in the business world and influences the question of what activities a manager can conduct on the side and who owns the profits they generate. For the justice system, the Vincenz case is a hard lesson.

This is evident from the fact that the investigations and evidence fill over 500 federal folders. Despite this, the authorities have tangled themselves in contradictions. For example, they argued about whether the indictment met the necessary criteria, wasting valuable time. Ultimately, however, the justice system can only salvage what others have left behind.

This applies not only to Pierin Vincenz and his co-defendants, but also to Raiffeisen and Aduno, who must be held accountable for inadequately controlling their top managers. Vincenz earned an estimated 40 million francs in total as CEO, but the supervisory board failed to block a portion of the money to be able to reclaim it if necessary.

The Swiss justice system generally struggles with large economic procedures, as seen in the Swissair case in 2007, which ended with acquittals. Even if the opinions on the coffee tables are already made up, the moral question remains.