Apple juice instead of balsamic vinegar - million-dollar scam with fine vinegar barrels busted?

No time? blue News summarizes for you

• Investors who had purchased barrels from a balsamic vinegar producer as an investment found low-viscosity apple juice instead of balsamic vinegar in their containers when they took a sample at the end of 2024.
• It is suspected that the stored barrels are empty and balsamic vinegar is only decanted from canisters when it is collected; a criminal complaint for fraud has been filed.
• The Federal Criminal Court has obliged the Canton of Zurich to investigate the alleged million-euro fraud after Zurich and Zug were unable to agree on jurisdiction.

Summary created with

At the behest of the Federal Criminal Court, the Canton of Zurich has had to take over a criminal complaint concerning an alleged balsamic vinegar fraud. The complainant accuses two representatives of a balsamic vinegar manufacturer of fraud.

Customers can buy a whole barrel of high-quality balsamic vinegar from the balsamic vinegar company and have it stored in a tunnel for five years. After that, they have the option of purchasing the barrel, continuing to store it or selling it. This is the result of a decision by the Federal Criminal Court published on Monday.

A barrel cost around CHF 12,000 each and could be offered for sale for around CHF 30,000 after five years. A company and its owner, for whom a lawyer filed the complaint, are alleged to have invested around 8.4 million francs in such balsamic barrels between 2019 and 2020.

From the canister

When the company owner and another customer had samples taken from their barrels at the end of 2024, they were thin. One of them was apple juice, according to the court ruling. It was suspected that the barrels in the tunnel contained apple juice. When investors collected their purchased barrels, balsamic vinegar was presumably filled from canisters into new barrels.

The Appeals Chamber of the Federal Criminal Court did not deal with the content of the complaint. It had to decide which canton should take over the case because the cantons of Zug and Zurich were unable to reach an agreement. The ball is now in Zurich's court. (Decision BG.2025.59 of 17.11.2025)

More from the department