When the generals take the “small official channels” – the dispute over masks and millions escalates

“I want justice,” says Chairman of the Board of Directors Hans- Christoph Vöhringer, owner of the trading company Netztal AG in Baar ZG. He has been fighting for “justice” for about a year and a half. Against potent opponents: the DDPS Defense Department and the major bank UBS.

The story begins on March 20, 2020 when the army first-aid kit was commissioned by the Federal Council to procure “the health goods for the entire health system”. In the fight against Corona, millions of face masks had to be produced as quickly as possible. Because the whole world wanted such masks, prices went through the roof. A land of milk and honey for windy speculators. In March, for example, the federal government paid the Emix in Zurich up to CHF 9.90 per mask.

The army pharmacy at the beginning concluded a cheaper contract April 2020 from: The Netztal should deliver masks for 25 million euros: 2 million FFP2 masks for 4.50 euros and 20 million surgical masks for 16 million euros. The federal government transferred an advance payment of 7.5 million euros to UBS, from where the money was to flow to various mask suppliers, including in China.

But it never came to that. UBS allegedly suspected fraud and asked Netztal to post the money back to the VBS, which happened immediately. Three days later, the bank also filed a report on suspicion of money laundering. Only: The following criminal proceedings did not reveal any indications of criminal acts.

So the question arises: What happened there – and what role did the DDPS play in the money laundering report? None, the DDPS has been asserting for months.

Unusual processes, open questions

Only: Brigadier Markus Näf, who has been task force chief for mask procurement since the end of March 2020, gave as early as April 18, 2020 in a status report that UBS had “examined a suspicious transaction report for a violation of the Anti-Money Laundering Act” in the Netztal case. How did Näf know about this report, which was only submitted on April 17, 2020?

The status report also states that the DDPS had achieved through the “small official channel” that the millions who were previously “without any security »paid would be reimbursed. And: “We got away with a ‘black eye’”. As a result, Netztal was “no longer able to fulfill its contract”.

Who was there on the “small official channel”?

A brief report, commissioned by the Netztal came to the conclusion that the DDPS had breached good faith when it actually got in touch with UBS to get the money back. Because it had a legally valid contract with the Netztal.

Small VBS service channel to UBS? The DDPS denies that the “small official channel” means direct contact between the buyer of the army pharmacy and a Netztal employee. The Netztal had independently instructed the reversal, since the delivery deadline could not be met. They also have nothing to do with the money laundering report and the criminal proceedings.

Questions remain unanswered. The Anti-Money Laundering Act stipulates that the bank may not inform “those affected or third parties” about its money laundering report. The DDPS should therefore have had no knowledge of the report. Unless it initiated it itself.

When asked, the army said that none of the DDPS employees had “knowledge of or suspected money laundering”. But if they had, they would have been “at least entitled, if not obliged, to file a complaint.” It is also unusual that if the bank has a justified suspicion, it must report “immediately” to the federal government. But the money laundering report only followed days after the repayment.

UBS past of senior officers

A strange case. Brigadier Näf and Army Chief Thomas Süssli, who has been in office since the beginning of 2020, once worked for UBS. At the beginning of 2020 there were positioning battles in the DDPS between the Süssli camp and the one over the chief of the army staff, Claude Meier, who wanted to become chief of the army himself. Senior field doctor Andreas Stettbacher, who was in charge of the army pharmacy, belonged in the Meier camp: the two of them signed the Netztal deal.

But the brigadier’s “small official route”, wherever it led, went in the pants. Because the VBS later indirectly admitted that the exit from the mask deal was not correct. Otherwise it would not have concluded an ultimately costly settlement with the Netztal, according to the “Tages-Anzeiger”. In the meantime, however, Netztal has demands for compensation from its suppliers on the table – and is therefore taking legal action against UBS.

However, things are not looking good before the Zurich Commercial Court. According to Netztal, the judge in charge of the case, a Zurich professor and former banking lawyer, is said to have taken the position that UBS had done everything right, that Chinese and Romanian suppliers were potential fraudsters, and that the public prosecutor had not worked properly.

The tough Vöhringer doesn’t want to give up anytime soon. “I want to know what was played here,” he says.