[ad_1]
Patrik Gisel remains faithful until the end. He issued a press release announcing that he "decided to resign from his position as CEO at the end of the year and resign from the bank". Research has, however, shown that his departure was not voluntary: the new board came into effect The last few weeks have been a power struggle that ended with Gisel losing support. Purely formally, it may be true that he decided to resign. But only because it was suggested to him.
It also seems strange that the commission expressly states that Gisel's integrity is "beyond any doubt". True, unlike Pierin Vincenz, Giselnicht is accused of personal enrichment with Raiffeisen investments. He must also be credited with cleaning up most of Vincenz's unfortunate heritage in the last three years. He repudiated most of the funds that his adoptive father had put in place, which led to a series of conflicts of interest
Reasoning with Gaps
But that does not want not to say that the integrity of Gisel is irreproachable as the Commission claims. This justifies his statement that neither the completed procedure of the Autorité des marchés financiers (Finma) nor the intermediate results of the internal investigation in progress at the time of Vincenz-Gisel have regulatory impact. This reasoning has significant gaps. First of all, the internal investigation is not over, so Gisel is not yet off the hook. The Finma said it would not rule on possible lawsuits against individuals before the presentation of the internal investigation.
Secondly, the Finema investigation report has a negative impact on Gisel, but not on the regulatory level: the report indicates that Raiffeisen-Spitze will be the target by 2015 awarded to the financial services provider Leonteq and his bosses then loans more than half a billion francs. This risk of clumping should have been reported to the board of directors, who was Gisel's number two at the time, but did not do it. She has passed her skills twice. Finma also states that "the administrative organization was incompatible with good management". This is not a good testimony neither for Vincenz nor for Gisel
Unwarranted Behavior
Gisel also made himself unbelievable because he was washing his hands in the air. innocence and claimed to have known nothing of delicate structures. He was Chairman of the Board of Directors of several Raiffeisen vehicles, which Pierin Vincenz had bought and which he probably enriched.
Finally, Gisel's personal behavior in the last few months of the third largest bank was unworthy of several points. On the one hand, he made repeated statements that lasted only very briefly. He said on January 14 in an interview with SonntagsZeitung that he was ruling out a sale of the Notenstein subsidiary. Four months later he announces the sale of Notenstein to Vontobel – and acknowledges that he's flattered in the interview.
On the other hand, Gisel's behavior towards Vincenz and his wife Nadja Ceregato, Raiffeisen's chief counsel, testifies to its ambiguous character. . Even when Vincenz was suspected of illegal transactions, Gisel insisted that they were still good friends. But when Vincenz was in detention, Gisel did not want to know it, suddenly claiming that they had never been friends. And Ceregato, whom he had introduced into the expanded management, he said via a press conference, that she was no longer in demand. A fading dismissal was rare in the Swiss business world
The fact that the interim president, Pascal Gantenbein, finds only glowing words for Patrik Gisel in the press releases seems strange in this context. It is doubtful that he has the necessary judgment to preside over a systemic bank.
(Tages-Anzeiger)
created: 18.07.2018, 22:04
Source link
