The big scandal / Der grosse Skandal
Prosecution and the Bank itself confirmed already in 2009 Elmer was not an employee of Julius Baer, Zurich! Therefore, without any doubt the case against Rudolf Elmer should have been
closed immediately in 2009 that did happen! Why? On the other hand with the very reasoning the fraud investigation against the bank was closed. Moral corruption?
Die Staatsanwaltschaft und die Bank bestätigten bereits im Jahr 2009, dass Rudolf Elmer kein Angestellter der Bank Julius Bär & Co. AG, Zürich war. Logischerweise und diese ohne
Zweifel hätte das Strafverfahren gegen Rudolf Elmer im Jahr 2009 umgehend eingestellt werden müssen, das geschah nicht! Warum? Anderseits wurde das Strafverfahren "Sozialversicherungsbetrug"
gegen die Bank Julius Bär 2009 eingestellt! Moralische Korruption?
FIRST SCANDAL: Strafanzeige der Julius Bär / Complaint of Julius Baer filed against Rudolf Elmer
The first lawyer of Baer Holding/GAM Holding, Ch. Hiestand filed the complaint against Rudolf Elmer. He had not to provide any evidence that Rudolf Elmer was an employee of Julius Baer Bank & Co. AG, Zuerich even though it is key to be an employee of a Swiss domiciled bank in order to apply Swiss Bank Secrecy. Secondly, Ch. Hiestand had not to prove that any Swiss Bank accounts have been disclosed because only Swiss bank accounts are subject to protection under Swiss Law. On the contrary, the prosecutor Alexandra Bergmann presented in the attachment to her complaint to the Court of Zurich on January 17th, 2010 the bank accounts of Julius Baer, New York!
Der erste Jurist Ch. Hiestand reichte die Strafanzeige ein und musste nicht nachweisen, dass Rudolf Elmer einen Arbeitsverhältnis mit der Schweizer Bank hatte, um sicherzustellen, dass das Schweiz. Bankengesetz BaG 47 angewendet werden kann. Hinzu kommt, Ch. Hiestand musste auch nicht nachweisen, dass schweizerische Bankkonten offeng
20050617 Strafanzeige Julius Bär CH. Hi
Adobe Acrobat Dokument
SECOND SCANDAL: Bank Julius Baer & Co. AG, Zürich : Rudolf Elmer is not a Swiss employee/kein Schweizer Angestellter Jan 30th, 2009
Julius Baer & Co. AG, Zürich confirmed in the letter Rudolf Elmer is not a Swiss employee, he was employeed with Julius Bär Cayman, his salary was paid in the Caymans, he had to report to the Cayman CEO etc.
Die Bank Julius Bär & Co. AG, Zürich bestätigt in ihrem Brief an die Staatsanwaltschaft, dass Elmer seit 1994 für eine unabhängige Gruppengesellschaft mit Sitz Cayman, mit lokalem Arbeitsvertrag, mit lokaler Entlöhung sowie lokalen Subordinationsverhältnis stehend auf den Cayman Islands tätig war!
20090130 Einstellungsverfügung SozVersBe
Adobe Acrobat Dokument
FORTH SCANDAL: Expatriate Agreement Sept 1st, 1999 - the "dubious Employment Contract" which was for more than a decade considered as Rudolf Elmer`s Employment Contract.True contract was concealed!
Prosecutors lic. iur. A. Bergmann, Dr. lic. iur. R. Jaeger, Dr. lic. iur. P.C. Giger and the following judges of the lower court Dr. iur. E. Zweifel (2005), lic. iur. Zatti (2011), lic. iur. Th Fleischer (2011), lic. iur. I. Erb (2011), Dr. lic. iur. S. Aeppli (2011 and 2014), Dr. lic. iur. R. Schönig (2011), lic. iur. R. Faga (2014) and the following judges of the Higher Court Dr. P. Martin, lic. iur. W. Meyer, lic. iur. A. Schärer (all 2011); lic. iur. Peter Marti, lic. iur. R. Naef, lic. iur E. Leuenberger (all 2011) confirmed with the rulings at the time and also in the indictments and their written verdicts that "The Expatriate Agrement" is THE EMPLOYEMENT CONTRACT WITH JULIUS BAER BANK CO. AG, Zuerich!! ONLY on August 23rd, 2016 the following judges lic. iur. P. Marti, lic. iur. E. Naef and lic. iur. M. Langmeier came to the conclusion that the "Expatriate Agreement" does not include all necessary requirements of an employment contract suchs as salary, holidays etc.!
19991216 Expatriate Agreement without si
Adobe Acrobat Dokument
EXPLANATION: Prosecution and the judges made up a wonderful story, however, they lack of looking at the major and crucial question
"Who controlled the email account "Robin.firstname.lastname@example.org?"
This important question was not answered by the judges because it would have made clear that Rudolf Elmer could not have been the sender of the "Hi, Dirty Pig - email to Christoph Hiestand! The
question was simple ignored because it is a crucial fact in favour of Rudolf Elmer!!
Here the facts: on Tuesday Sept 6th, 2007 an email was sent to Christoph Hiestand with "Subject: Are you still alive? That will change soon!" from the email account "email@example.com". The
IP address of the sender was 188.8.131.52 which points to the ADSL account provided for telephone number 673843, the Sefton Hotel PLC, Harris Promenade, Douglas, Isle of Man.
First conclusion: the sender of above email must have been in the Sefton Hotel at 01.32.22 - 0400 (EDT) which means at 01.32 AM night time!
The email "hi dirty pig" was sent from the email account "firstname.lastname@example.org" according to the attached indictment. From this account we have learned that it is controlled out of the Isle of
Man respectively Selfton Hotel!
The Attorney General of Isle of Man confirmed to Zurich`s Prosecution Office on March 18th, 2008 that
1st) "there is no record of anyone by the name Elmer staying there (Sefton Hotel) at the relevant time
2nd) "there is no trace of the name Elmer Rudolf Mathias as a holder of an email account with Manx Telecom (email@example.com and firstname.lastname@example.org and email@example.com.
3rd) the relevant IP address (184.108.40.206) was assigned to the ADSL account provided for telephone number 673843, the Sefton Hotel PLC, Hariss Promenade, Douglas, Isle of Man.
4th) the bomb threat which was sent to Tagesanzeiger in Zurich related to Julius Baer from the email account of Isle of Man (ADSL account) which was set up with Manx Telecom DSL network
again Isle of Man.