In February 2023, a traveler forgot her 5,400 franc Rolex at the security checkpoint at Geneva airport. In August of the same year, a security guard was convicted of theft. The luxury watch was found at his home, although he claimed to have placed it in the office of those responsible. But appearances are sometimes deceptive, at least insufficient to form a definitive opinion. On May 7, 2024, the man who had always proclaimed his innocence obtained the dismissal of the case. “It is a relief for my client who has been, for more than 18 years, an exemplary employee,” underlines Mr. Dimitri Tzortzis.
The agent explained to the prosecutor that he had actually put the watch that a colleague had given him in the pocket of his uniform, then forgotten it there. When he noticed it, he kept it quiet, knowing he had committed professional misconduct and fearing for his job: the procedure would have required him to deposit it in a locked safe provided for this purpose in Cointrin. He planned to bring her back two days later, but in the meantime he had been questioned by the police and then searched. The damage was done.
In view of the defendant’s explanations and the unfolding of the facts, the Public Prosecutor considered it impossible to establish the intention to appropriate the Rolex, and therefore the theft. “It seems likely that the defendant took the watch and forgot to place it in the trunk and write it on the list of found items. His behavior from the moment he noticed his mistake is regrettable, but does not constitute an offense.
Mr. Tzortzis recalls that when his client put the watch in his pocket “purely inadvertently, he found himself not only in the presence of several colleagues, but also under the eye of several video surveillance cameras. If his intentions were criminal he would not have acted in this way, in this place, in front of his colleagues.” He adds that the ex-agent “proved to the Public Prosecutor’s Office that he had found, a few years ago, a bag containing several thousand Swiss francs, before handing it over to the lost property. This element also demonstrates his honesty.
Dismissed just after the incident, the man is demanding reinstatement and compensation. The airport refused. A procedure is underway before the institution’s appeals committee.
