contents
Is Switzerland only half-heartedly looking for Russian fortunes? Two money laundering experts get to the heart of the problem.
Stefan Lenz, former public prosecutor at the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, assumes that much has not yet been found. He thinks of the dozens of properties owned by Russians on Lake Geneva and other preferred areas. Ownership does not appear from the land registers because companies are used as a front: “Seco cannot get to these properties, I am convinced of that.”
Lack of expertise at Seco
The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco) is responsible for implementing the sanctions. But this lacks the expertise, says Lenz. During his 16 years with the Federal Public Prosecutor’s Office, the now self-employed lawyer had been looking for hidden funds in large money laundering cases. For example in the Brazilian Odebrecht scandal. Only with huge investigative teams and a lot of specific expertise is a perspective possible, he emphasizes.
The Federal Prosecutor’s Office (BA), for its part, has the experts and the experience, but may only track down hidden funds if there is an initial suspicion that an oligarch has acquired his money criminally. But that is probably not the case in many cases, says Lenz: “The funds were welcome in Switzerland. From my point of view it is window dressing to take the war as a basis. You should have cleaned up ten or 15 years ago.”
From my point of view it is window dressing to take the war as a basis. You should have cleaned up ten or 15 years ago.”
The Limits of the Law
Lenz is thus pointing to another problem that is still likely to be the subject of political controversy. What happens to the locked Russian billions if you can’t prove that the money was criminally earned?
He doesn’t know of any law that would allow you to simply collect money just because the owner had close ties to a certain government, says Lenz: Evidence of criminal origin should be an impossibility: “You’re now taking a first step without thinking what ultimately happens to the funds.”
Safe «parallel world»
Lenz points to the difficult search for hidden assets: If, for example, the yacht belongs to a domiciliary company, then the owner does not sell the yacht to a third party, only his shares in the domiciliary company. No one will be able to determine that the yacht has changed hands.
The domicile companies form a parallel world. At most, chance hits are possible.
Domiciliary companies or offshore companies are vehicles to disguise the owner or the origin of the money. And a property is often registered to a domiciliary company that belongs to another, which in turn belongs to another, and so on. Lenz speaks of a huge parallel world. At most, chance hits are possible.
The «business model»
The central keyword is transparency in the case of domiciliary companies. International developments are going in this direction, but Switzerland has been struggling so far.
Money laundering expert Mark van Thiel says there are still lawyers or trustees in Switzerland who would help wealthy customers hide their money. He used to work for the MROS money laundering agency and is now self-employed: “It’s a business model and that’s why politics is lagging behind international developments.”
This is a business model and that is why politics is lagging behind international developments.
Incompetence or lack of will?
Either it’s the incompetence of the authorities, which he doesn’t believe, says van Thiel. Because there are very intelligent people in the authorities and also in Parliament. Or it is conscious will: “You wait until it really doesn’t work anymore.”