Found an error?
Report now
Technopark AG in Zurich was allegedly defrauded of 3.2 million francs by a former construction manager.
Technopark AG
A former construction manager is alleged to have defrauded Technopark Zurich of more than 3.2 million francs and used the money to finance a luxurious lifestyle. Although he largely admits to the charges, no verdict was reached in court: The judges consider the requested sentence too lenient and have returned the indictment to the district attorney’s office.
3.2 million francs, expensive watches, and boats on Swiss lakes. A man in the canton of Zurich lived a life of luxury. The catch: He stole the 3.2 million francs.
A former construction manager is alleged to have defrauded Technopark AG in Zurich of more than 3.2 million francs between 2018 and 2021. On Wednesday, he appeared before the Zurich District Court in a summary proceeding.
The 43-year-old is accused of commercial fraud, multiple counts of document forgery, multiple counts of money laundering, and multiple violations of the Weapons Act.
What exactly happened? The defendant was initially a construction manager and later an external project manager at Technopark AG. According to the indictment, he took advantage of his position to review and approve bids and invoices.
Through an outside drywall contractor, he is alleged to have systematically inflated invoices and approved them as correct. Because the Technopark relied on his review, the invoices were paid. Part of the money is alleged to have subsequently been funneled back to the accused. In 2019 alone, overpriced invoices totaling approximately 1.55 million Swiss francs are said to have been issued in this manner.
In addition to fraud, the public prosecutor’s office accuses the man of concealing money allegedly obtained through criminal activity via a casino in Liechtenstein—in other words, of money laundering. He is also alleged to have used forged identification documents. Several weapons and ammunition were also seized during house searches. All of this took place in Austria.
When the fraud scheme was uncovered in Zurich, the defendant fled to various countries before eventually settling in Austria. During his flight, he applied for at least eight forged identification documents, including a diplomatic status card and an ID. Since he was working as a bodyguard in Austria, he purchased weapons, thereby violating the firearms law.
The case is being heard under summary proceedings. The prosecution is seeking a prison sentence of 36 months, of which seven months would be non-probationary. The 232 days spent in pretrial detention are to be credited toward the sentence, which already corresponds to the non-probationary portion of the prison term. The remaining 29 months are to be imposed as a suspended sentence with a two-year probationary period.
In addition, the public prosecutor's office is seeking a claim for reimbursement of 815,955.66 Swiss francs, as well as damages in the same amount, in favor of Technopark Immobilien AG.
In court on Wednesday, the former construction manager spoke plainly: “I’ll be glad when the trial comes to an end and I can make a fresh start.” He said he felt remorse. “I abused the trust of people who had done nothing to me,” he says during his questioning by the judge. He also has 1.1 million Swiss francs in debt that he must repay. The judge does not ask where this debt comes from.
The presiding judge wants to know how things could have come to this in the first place. After all, the defendant had been running his own company at the time and was earning a good living. The defendant replies, “I can’t even imagine how things could have come to this.” He says he was unhappy back then. “One thing led to another,” he says.
He’s in therapy now. “I’m working through things and reflecting on what happened.” Back then, he had been addicted to gambling and had been drinking alcohol. Those were certainly the main factors. “I had completely gone off the rails. My actions ruined everything.” He also never wants to work in a job where he manages finances or deals with money again, so he’ll never be tempted.
The judge then gives the floor to the prosecutor. The prosecutor starts off with a bit of humor, saying, “I find myself in the unique situation of playing the role of the defense.” The judge had previously asked him to explain why he was requesting a reduced sentence—even though he was on the opposing side.
The prosecutor stated: “The defendant was cooperative and made a detailed confession. His own statement also demonstrates insight and a high degree of self-reflection.” The defendant is undergoing therapy and attributes his actions to his gambling addiction. He committed money laundering because he was addicted to gambling. That is why he went to the casino.
According to the Criminal Code, it is possible to impose only a partially suspended sentence. In this case, that provision applies. Because the defendant has already served time in pretrial detention, one-third of the total prison sentence of 4.5 years—which would be appropriate in this case—has already been served. Therefore, the defendant should now be sentenced to a suspended prison term with a probationary period of two years.
The defense is then given the opportunity to speak. However, the defendant's attorney declines, citing the prosecution's arguments. They agree.
After just half an hour of deliberation, the court reconvened the hearing. No verdict was reached, as the court found that the prosecutor’s arguments and sentencing recommendations were incorrect.
The court expects a 5-year prison sentence for the economic crime in Zurich. The prosecutor recommended a sentence of 3 years. In addition, the court must also take into account the other offenses: money laundering, forgery of documents, and the violation of the Weapons Act. Without considering mitigating circumstances such as a confession or cooperation, the court has determined a prison sentence of 90 months.
Consequently, the court returned the case files to the public prosecutor’s office. The court doubts that the defendant had such a severe gambling addiction that it led him to commit fraud. There is no expert opinion to prove this. Therefore, it is now up to the prosecution to weigh the defendant’s culpability in such a way that the sentence specified in the indictment is appropriate.
After the hearing, blue News spoke with the prosecutor. He said, “We’re now trying to obtain an expert opinion to determine whether the defendant had a gambling addiction.” The prosecutor said he was somewhat surprised. “I’ve been working at the district attorney’s office for a long time and specialize in white-collar crimes. In other cases where the amount involved was much higher, lighter sentences have already been handed down.”
That is why he finds it surprising that this is not the case here. He expects that there will be another trial at the district court in a year.
The presumption of innocence applies.
16.07.2026, 04:30
16.07.2026, 06:45
