The Pierin Vincenz case is one of the largest white-collar criminal proceedings in recent Swiss history. After the Zurich District Court convicted the former Raiffeisen CEO in April 2022 of multiple counts of aggravated criminal mismanagement, fraud, and passive bribery, sentencing him to 45 months in prison, the judgment was later overturned by the Zurich High Court. The court identified serious procedural deficiencies and initially referred the matter back to the public prosecutor's office.

However, Switzerland’s Federal Supreme Court overturned that decision in early 2025 and reinstated the first-instance judgment. This cleared the way for appeal proceedings before the High Court.

Request for Stay Rejected

The appeal proceedings, which had originally been blocked, are now scheduled to begin on August 10, 2026, according to a letter issued by the High Court on June 4, 2026.

In doing so, the High Court rejected requests for a stay of proceedings that, according to information obtained by finews, had been submitted by at least two parties.

The applicants argued that the Federal Supreme Court should first rule on another fundamental procedural issue.

At the centre of the dispute is the question of whether it was permissible to seek external legal assistance in the drafting and revision of the indictment.

Defendants Were Not Informed

The public prosecutor's office had its indictment reviewed by Professor Andreas Donatsch, a former professor of criminal law at the University of Zurich and former member of the Zurich Cantonal Court of Cassation, as first reported by Handelszeitung. «As part of its quality-control process, the public prosecutor's office also consulted experts,» its media office confirmed at the time.

The applicants argue that Swiss law does not provide for prosecutors to enlist third parties to assist in drafting an indictment. They also suspect a breach of official secrecy. Furthermore, the defendants were allegedly never informed that an external expert had been consulted. In the applicants’ view, these constitute serious procedural errors that raise concerns about the impartiality of the Zurich public prosecutor's office.

A Potentially Explosive Ruling from Lausanne

Should the Federal Supreme Court conclude that such external involvement was unlawful and violated the defendants’ rights, the consequences for the appeal proceedings could be significant.

This places the High Court in a delicate position. On the one hand, there is a strong interest in finally addressing the substance of a case that has been ongoing for years. On the other hand, a subsequent ruling by the Federal Supreme Court could call essential parts of the proceedings into question.

In the best-case scenario, the Federal Supreme Court will issue its judgment before the appeal proceedings begin on August 10, 2026. If the judges in Lausanne were to agree with the applicants and deem the involvement of external legal advisers unlawful, far-reaching consequences could follow. Observers consider delays to the proceedings and even statute-of-limitations risks to be possible.

If, however, the Federal Supreme Court issues its ruling only after the appeal proceedings have concluded, a decision in favour of the applicants could retrospectively undermine procedural steps that have already been taken. «For the High Court, that would be quite an embarrassment,» said a person familiar with the case.

Such an outcome is far from implausible. Marcel Niggli, professor of criminal law at the University of Fribourg, told Bilanz: «I find it extremely unusual that a public prosecutor's office seeks external advice on legal questions,» he said. «After all, it is a core responsibility of the prosecutor's office to know the law.»