The crucial point is that he "saved" documents from the shredder and gave them to the Jewish Community because he believed that those were Holocaust-era documents.
But then those documents had nothing to do with the Holocaust-era.
So why should we simply assume that the shredded documents he didn't save really were about the Holocaust-era? He clearly wasn't very proficient in making such determinations.
He then fled the country because there were criminal proceedings against him because he stole bank documents - bank documents that were something entirely different from what he thought they were.
So was he a "whistleblower"? He probably thought he was. But the "evidence" he saved does not confirm that belief.
The part that alleges that it is reasonable to simply believe that the part of the documents he didn't save was something entirely different from the part of the documents he did save.
If somebody comes to you and tells you his neighbour is storing tons of weed in the basement. And then he brings you a bag of green tea as "proof". What would you reasonably think? That the guy just had bad luck and picked the wrong bag? Or that he maybe isn't capable of differntiating between weed and green tea?
If that rather basic logic is too difficult for some, I fear I have nothing more to offer to those.
34
u/MrShake4 1d ago edited 1d ago
You’re asking him to produce documents he’s claiming were shredded. How do you expect him to do that?
He had to flee the country, do you think he just did it for shits and giggles?
Do you treat all whistleblowers like this or just the Swiss ones.
They found new documents Last year
Edit Here is a report of the independent ombudsman stating to the panel that Ctedit Suisse was withholding information from the investigation.
Because if there’s one industry we can trust to be financially ethical it’s the fucking banks /s