The Vincenz case has drawn significant attention from the Swiss public in recent years. As the former CEO of Raiffeisen Switzerland, Pierin Vincenz became the central figure in one of the most high-profile white-collar criminal proceedings in recent memory. The case offers valuable insights at the intersection of corporate governance, criminal law, and strategic litigation management. Below, we address five key questions arising from the case, with a focus on practical implications for litigation professionals.

What is the Vincenz case about, and what has happened so far?

Triggered by a criminal complaint, the Zurich Public Prosecutor’s Office III initiated criminal proceedings on 22 December 2017 against Pierin Vincenz and Beat Stocker on suspicion of criminal mismanagement. Over the course of the investigation, the scope of the proceedings expanded significantly. In the beginning of 2018, Vincenz was placed on remand for over three months.

The indictment, filed on 26 October 2020, accused the main defendants of misusing company credit cards for personal expenses and unlawfully leveraging their positions during transactions involving affiliated companies. One key example was the Investnet Holding, in which Vincenz held a private stake while Raiffeisen maintained a majority shareholding.

On 11 April 2022, the Zurich District Court convicted Vincenz of multiple counts of aggravated criminal mismanagement, partially attempted fraud, and passive private bribery. He was sentenced to three years and nine months in prison, while Beat Stocker received a four-year sentence. Both were also fined heavily. The Zurich Highest Public Prosecutor (“Oberstaatsanwaltschaft”) appealed the verdict to the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne.

What did the Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne decide?

In its ruling dated 17 February 2025, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the appeal filed by the Zurich Highest Public Prosecutor (“Oberstaatsanwaltschaft”) and overturned the decree remitting the case by the Court of Appeal. It instructed the appellate court to proceed with the appeal based on the original indictment.

The Federal Supreme Court found that, despite its length (356 pages), the indictment met the formal requirements of the Swiss Criminal Procedure Code. While overly extensive indictments should generally be avoided, the alleged deficiencies in this case were remediable and could have been addressed during the appeal process. The court emphasized that a remand, under the given circumstances, violated the principle of procedural efficiency, especially considering the risk of statute of limitations.

This decision underscores the importance of procedural economy and confirms that remands are only permissible in cases of irreparable procedural errors.

What can litigators learn from the Vincenz case?

The case offers several practical takeaways for litigation practitioners:

✔ Comprehensive indictments are not inherently defective. What matters is whether the defendant can clearly understand the charges. In complex white-collar crime cases involving multiple parties, lengthy indictments are often inevitable—and permissible if structured clearly.

✔ Remands in appeal proceedings should remain exceptional. Litigators should avoid requesting remands lightly, as seen in the Vincenz case. Such actions can lead to significant delays and procedural setbacks. Remands must not be used to fix curable errors.

✔ Procedural efficiency is paramount. The Supreme Court highlighted that the previously conducted trial—spanning eight hearing days and producing a 1,200-page judgment—should not be repeated without compelling justification. Litigation teams must skillfully balance legal precision with strategic efficiency.

How do procedural errors during investigations impact the main trial?

Procedural flaws during the investigation phase can affect the trial depending on whether they are deemed remediable or irreparable. Fixable errors—such as those in examination hearings or indictments—can be corrected in later stages. In contrast, serious violations—like denying the right to be heard or significantly impairing the defense—can result in the verdict being overturned.

The Vincenz ruling is a prime example that not all deficiencies lead to dismissal. The Supreme Court did not consider the indictment’s length or the lack of a French translation as irreparable. Instead, it ruled these could be corrected during the appeal. The key question remains: Were the defendant’s rights to a fair defense materially impaired? Only then is a remand justified.

For litigators, this means procedural errors must be assessed contextually and strategically. Not every formal defect warrants a retrial, but if leveraged correctly, such issues can influence the course of proceedings.

How can companies design expense policies to prevent abuse, and what controls are effective?

The Vincenz case highlights the risks of vague expense policies. The convictions partly stemmed from private expenses billed to corporate accounts—demonstrating the critical need for clear internal guidelines.

To mitigate these risks, companies should:

✔ Establish detailed travel and expense policies
✔ Implement multi-level approval workflows (e.g., four-eyes principle)
✔ Use digital expense management systems to ensure transparency and traceability
✔ Conduct regular audits through internal or external auditors
✔ Build an independent compliance structure that can intervene when misconduct is suspected

Robust and well-enforced policies are the best defense against both criminal liability and reputational damage—and they enhance corporate integrity. Get in touch with us today to develop preventive measures tailored to your business and elevate your corporate governance standards.