Zurich Prosecutors Charge Journalist Who Exposed Raiffeisen Scandal With Violating Banking Secrecy
Swiss prosecutors charge journalist Lukas Haessig with violating banking secrecy over his 2016 articles exposing the Pierin Vincenz Raiffeisen Bank scandal.
Zurich prosecutors have charged journalist Lukas Haessig with violating Banking in Switzerland secrecy laws over his 2016 reporting that exposed the Pierin Vincenz Raiffeisen Bank scandal. Haessig disclosed on October 15, 2026 that the indictment had been filed, a decade after he published details about payments received by the former Raiffeisen CEO.
His reporting alleged that Vincenz received CHF 2.9 million before Raiffeisen acquired Investnet, a revelation that eventually triggered criminal proceedings against the banker himself. But the articles that started it all have now come back for the reporter who wrote them.
The path from dropped case to active prosecution took a series of legal turns. Prosecutors initially dropped the case against Haessig in December 2025, only for an appeal by Stocker to succeed. The Federal Court overturned the dismissal in July 2026, clearing the way for the charges Haessig now faces.
The indictment itself rests partly on a Julius Baer compliance memo that the prosecution does not actually possess, a detail that raises obvious questions about evidentiary foundations. Charging a journalist for disclosing banking information while relying on banking information you don’t have is, at minimum, an awkward prosecutorial posture.
Vincenz and Stocker were sentenced to three years nine months and four years respectively at first instance, with an appeal verdict due on January 11, 2027. The people the reporting exposed have already been convicted; the reporter who exposed them is now the one in court.
The outcome matters beyond Haessig’s case. Swiss banking secrecy has long been a bedrock legal principle, but it was designed to protect clients, not to shield executives allegedly enriching themselves through conflicted transactions. Prosecuting the journalist who broke the story open — after the subjects of that story received prison sentences — sends a signal about where the legal system’s priorities sit when reporting and secrecy collide.