1/7  Urs Rohner (l.), Board of Directors of Credit Suisse, discusses with Flavio Romerio von der Anwaltskanzlei Homburger, who wrote the report on the tax business.
Rohner apologizes in the media conference for the Ex-CS-Banker Khan taxation.
Both of them have been responsible for the taxation and must: Bouée (l.) , and Security Chief Remo Boccali.
Rohner apologizes to former CS top banker Iqbal Khan (43) for taxation by a detective agency. "It was wrong and untrue," Rohner said. These precautions do not correspond to the culture of Credit Suisse and will not occur any more, he promises.
Two top-shots must go
The culprits are quickly named: CS-operative chief Pierre-Olivier Bouée (48), had arranged the taxation. The bank's security chief, Remo Boccali (48), wound up his charge over a middle man.
This middle man put an end to his life for a week, because of his existence. Rohner expresses his sadness and expression.
Bouée and Boccali had to take the hat off. The motive of Bouée for the tax action: He was concerned that Kahn posed a risk to the economic and legal interests of Credit Suisse. That's how it says in the post. "Bouée regarded this taxation as very good, which is why he wanted to save it for himself," explains Flavio Romerio (53) over BLICK. The Homburger Anwalt led the investigation by the CS. Acknowledgment: Data were erased on Bouée's cellphone.
Thiam must remain
Bouée and CS boss Tidjane Thiam (57) have jointly raised the career leader, since the British insurer Prudential has been an inseparable partner since time immemorial. Thiam has brought his Kumpel Bouée to the CS in 2015.
It is unimaginable that both of them have not exchanged any of the tax at least verbally. In that, Romerio says, "We had a lot of data – even the Whatsapp news between Bouée and Thiam – and we found nothing that would have questioned the credibility of Thiam's statement." A total of 14 people questioned the accused in the case. .
So now those humps were separated, Bouée had to go, Thiam must stay. That's the most important result from Grossbank's view: CEO Tidjane Thiam knew nothing about anything.
"The oversight order was wrong and unappreciated."
Iqbal Khan did nothing
"The Homburger Investigation there is no indication that the CEO approves or oversees the supervision of Iqbal Khan before 18. September 2019, after the watch was canceled, "said the Bank. President Rohner therefore expresses his "full confidence" in his CEO.
However, Rohner also maintains: "The call of the bank has left the whole affair." Today, Khan, who had his new position as co-head of asset management at UBS, can resign yesterday. The report clearly states, Khan has fulfilled all his contractual duties and does not seek to subdue customers or co-workers.
Major questions remain open
Khan has a clean vest, which CS provides only half the truth. Many questions and contradictions remain open. As long as this has not been clarified, CEO Thiam is not quite as nice as he was at the media conference yet. His success on Rohner as CS president is questioned.
> Wieso dared Khan to go so fast?
Thus, the Financial Times, representing the financial world, is totally unsatisfied with Rohner's statement for the industry-short cooling period of Khans from only three months until the arrival at the UBS. "I helped after a dispute between Khan and Thiam to find an exit agreement that was useful for both sides," Rohner said. Damit still gives him no logical reason why he met Khan's masses.
> Is the dispute of Top Shots actually private?
Further, Rohner did openly state that the conflict between Khan and Thiam Anfang years was so great that both of them lost sight of it, to be represented in it. However, it still treats this obviously serious dispute as formerly a private matter of both descendants of Herrliberg ZH. "Was in the party in January between Khan and Thiam, not investigated, nor the dispute over trees," Rohner added.
> Are there also business differences?
For the call of credit Suisse, it is highly decisive to disclose the cause of the dispute. She must clearly state that this was in fact not a business nature. Customers who trust your CS money must now digest that the CEO is not informed about sensitive, potentially disruptive decisions. They should receive at least one verifiable explanation for the origin of the agreement between the two top executives.
> What is the case with the CS?
In the taxation case, many "unspeakable" behaviors remain conspicuous. Rohner himself described it as "not usual in our business that the CEO was not informed of any such thing (Note to the Redemption Order)".