A DARK AND CREEPY SWISS JUDICIAL VENDETTA The legal priciple of equality does not exists in Switzerland according to the ruling of the Federal Court of Switzerland, Jan 24th, 2025 Dear Federal Judges Jacquemoud-Rossari, Guidon, Wohlhauser, The complaint of 18 August 2023 demonstrates that Rudolf Elmer was not treated equally to Bank Julius Baer & Co. AG Zurich (BJB-ZRH) regarding the employment relationship. The criminal proceedings against BJB-ZRH for “violations of the Federal Act on Old-Age and Survivors Insurance” concerning unpaid social security contributions (approximately CHF 28,000) for the Rudolf Elmer were discontinued on 11 February 2009 with a dismissal order (Annex 09, p. 107/8). It was essentially reasoned that the Rudolf Elmer was not an employee of a Swiss bank and, therefore, BJB-ZRH was not liable for not forwarding employee and employer contributions to the Swiss social insurance system. The dismissal order stated (quote): “In response to an information request by this office, Bank Julius Baer & Co. AG in Zurich stated on 30 January 2009 that Rudolf Elmer had been working for an independent group company (of the Julius Baer Group) located in the Cayman Islands under a local employment contract with corresponding local remuneration since 1994.” The reasoning was thus that Rudolf Elmer had not been employed by a Swiss bank since 1 September 1994 and, therefore, was not subject to Swiss law from that date. However, the criminal proceedings for “Swiss banking secrecy violation” against Rudolf Elmer were continued after 11 February 2009 with the false claim that the appellant was employed by BJB-ZRH. The Zurich Cantonal Court discontinued the “Swiss banking secrecy violation” proceedings with a ruling dated 19 August 2016 (SB110200), and this dismissal was confirmed by the Federal Supreme Court judgment of 10 October 2018 (6B_1314/2016, 6B_1318/2016). The reasoning for the dismissal was identical to that of the criminal proceedings against BJB-ZRH for “violations of the Federal Act on Old-Age and Survivors Insurance,” which had been dismissed already on 11 February 2009. It is noteworthy that on 30 January 2009 (Annex 10, p. 109/11), the complainant BJB-ZRH submitted a detailed argumentation to the public prosecutor’s office regarding the appellant’s employment relationship—or lack thereof—with BJB-ZRH in connection with the alleged “Swiss banking secrecy violation involving client data of the sister company Julius Baer Bank and Trust Co. Ltd., Cayman Islands” (criminal complaint dated 17 June 2005). The argumentation stated (quote): “In the mid-1990s, the Julius Baer Group enabled Mr. Elmer to work for it in the Cayman Islands. The entities operated by the Julius Baer Group in the Cayman Islands were and are independent local legal entities with which Mr. Elmer consequently entered into an employment relationship after relocating his residence and to which he was subordinated. Mr. Elmer’s remuneration was accordingly paid locally by the employer in the Cayman Islands. [...] Thus, from September 1994, Mr. Elmer worked for an independent foreign group company (based in the Cayman Islands) under a local employment contract with corresponding local remuneration and in a local subordinate relationship in the Cayman Islands, and he was additionally provided with social security coverage by the bank in Switzerland.” The bank's letter dated 30 January 2009 aimed to avert prosecution for the fraud against the AHV/IV/EO social insurance system or “violations of the Federal Act on Old-Age and Survivors Insurance” against BJB-ZRH. It is evident that Rudolf Elmer was falsely portrayed as both an employee of BJB-ZRH and an employee of Julius Baer Bank and Trust Co. Ltd., Cayman Islands, during the same period by the public prosecutor’s office and BJB-ZRH to the judicial authorities. The reasons for this are apparent, as is the blatant violation of the principle of equality before the law. BJB-ZRH and the criminal justice system not only treated the Rudolf Elmer unequally regarding the employment relationship but also caused significant harm through 207 days of pre-trial detention, financial loss, and accusations of professional disqualification. The criminal proceedings for “Swiss banking secrecy violation” should have been discontinued no later than 11 February 2009 based on the principle of equality before the law. The fact remains that approximately 95% of the procedural costs imposed on the Rudolf Elmer (approximately CHF 370,000 for various expert opinions, attorney’s fees, etc.), as well as seizures (e.g., confiscation of service weapons to cover procedural costs), all of which were incurred after 11 February 2009 and imposed on Rudolf Elmer by the Federal Supreme Court judgment of 10 October 2018, would not have been necessary if the Zurich public prosecutor’s office had adhered to the principle of equality before the law on 11 February 2009. Link to the ruling of the Federal Court: https://search.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/aza/http/index.php?lang=de&type=highlight_simple_query&page=1&from_date=&to_date=&sort=relevance&insertion_date=&top_subcollection_aza=all&query_words=6F_45%2F2023&rank=1&azaclir=aza&highlight_docid=aza%3A%2F%2F24-01-2025-6F_45-2023&number_of_ranks=18
A DARK AND CREEPY SWISS JUDICIAL VENDETTA - the legal priciple of equality does not exists in Switzerland!Prosecutors