Shortcomings of Zurich`s Courts or how the political case of Rudolf Elmer was manipulated!
Justice Leaks Zurich shows many shortcomings of the entire investigation against Rudolf Elmer.
Violation of Criminal Law Article 307 (false testimony) by General Counsel of JB Group Ltd. Christoph Hiestand
The General Counsel of Julius Baer Group Ltd, Ch. Hiestand (lawyer) lied when he was interrogated by the Swiss prosecutor on August 14th, 2008. He made it crystal clear with his statement that Rudolf Elmer was subject to Swiss Bank Secrecy Law! Ch. Hiestand stated clearly and without any doubt that Rudolf Elmer was formally employed by Bank Julius Baer & Co. AG, Zurich. He statment (quote)
Question by the prosecutor A. Bergmann:
Under which Bank Secrecy Law was Mr. Rudolf Elmer?
Ànswer of the General Counsel Ch. Hiestand:
"Under Cayman Law certainly but he was also employed formally by Julius Baer Bank & Co, AG, Zurich and therefore he was also under Swiss Banking Secrecy Law".
If the General Counsel had not lied on August 14th, 2008 and told the truth to the prosecutor, the case against Rudolf Elmer in respect of violating Swiss Bank Secrecy Law would have been closed immediately. Therefore, it is a clear violation of Article 307 (Swiss Criminal Law, false testimony).
Question by the prosecutor A. Bergmann:
Under which Bank Secrecy Law was Mr. Rudolf Elmer?
Ànswer of the General Counsel Ch. Hiestand:
"Under Cayman Law certainly but he was also employed formally by Julius Baer Bank & Co, AG, Zurich and therefore he was also under Swiss Banking Secrecy Law".
If the General Counsel had not lied on August 14th, 2008 and told the truth to the prosecutor, the case against Rudolf Elmer in respect of violating Swiss Bank Secrecy Law would have been closed immediately. Therefore, it is a clear violation of Article 307 (Swiss Criminal Law, false testimony).
Kommentar schreiben