Zurich court refuses to investigate Vincennes’ followers

The Public Prosecutor in Zurich monitors the Public Prosecutor’s offices in the economic canton to which he is administratively controlled. Talk to the criminal authorities.

One of these investigative bodies, the Third Public Prosecution for Economic Crimes, has achieved great success. The charges against Beren Vincennes and other suspects largely prevailed in first court this spring.

But now it is targeted. Citizen was anonymous and by e-mail in the first prosecutor’s office supervisory complaint Filed against Responsible Attorney General Mark Jean Richard.

The person making the complaint accused him of hastily questioning Vincennes’ longtime boss, Raiffeisen chief Johannes Rüegg-Stürm, as a “witness” rather than a “person providing information”.

This meant that Rüegg-Stürm did not have to put himself in danger through his cooperation, but rather that the HSG professor had ensured that the kidnappers were protected from their persecution from the start.

The “witness” must tell the truth, but not accuse himself.

The critic believes that Jean-Richard Det Bressel, as the chief investigator is called by his full name, did not do his job properly with this kind of free pass for Roig Storm.

The first public prosecutor must take appropriate measures against the economic public prosecutor, and he must open an investigation against him.

And Andreas Eckert, as the prosecutor is called, does not seem to want to do that. In any case, he wrote the following to the complainant via email regarding his complaint:

“May I ask that you send your entry to us in the correct legal form. This can be done by mail, where the signed complaint is submitted to us, or – if done electronically – accompanied by an electronically certified signature in accordance with applicable legal provisions.”

The complainant considers this to be inadmissible. This (also anonymous) mediator said that supervisory complaints, such as “anonymous criminal complaints,” are always allowed, provided they show a “criminal act.”

Thus, such “also informal” supervisory complaints are possible. The anonymous goes on to say that he will certainly not identify himself by name, as he sees his “reputation in Zurich” in jeopardy.

It would be easy for the judiciary to turn the tables and take action against him. “You can find the reasons when you have the whole case on your side.”

The attorney general’s office did not respond to questions last week. Therefore, it remains open as to whether supervisory complaints via email should also be taken into account.

Nor is it clear how the Zurich criminal justice authorities will protect “whistleblowers” who ask them to identify themselves by name.