Furthermore, the bank has been carefully monitored in recent years by the Financial Markets Supervisory Authority and repeatedly warned. There are eleven enforcement procedures and dozens of other investigative documents in ten years to prove this. Given how things went, at this point in a vain or merely declamatory way. A fact that raises more than one eyebrow on the ability of Finma, as an authority or of whoever led it at that time, to impose itself with authority against a large bank. Procedures against actors of more modest size and political weight have had a different outcome in recent years. Our thoughts turn to the Ticino-based BSI which effectively disappeared overnight due to Finma's own decision. Of course, the report of the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (CPI) recalls how the supervisory authority doubted Credit Suisse's strategy, criticized its bonus policy, found problems with its funds, denounced the lack of management of risk, criticized the continuous changes in management and even identified gaps in the money laundering prevention system. The result? «The Board of Directors and management showed resistance to Finma's numerous interventions», to use the words of the ICC document. A “resistance” that almost resembles malice. Now, rightly, we are calling for more stringent rules for systemic banks and increased intervention powers for Finma. In the last two years, however, no public prosecutor, whether federal or cantonal, has felt the need to have those who administered and directed Credit Suisse tell them how things went.
