Back on Feb 2022, SRF published this paragraph on this article about a crypto guy:
According to a reliable source, several incoming and outgoing transactions at Dadvan Yousuf raise questions. It shows “SRF Investigativ” transactions by Dadvan Yousuf to crypto addresses that are on blacklists and that are warned about on crypto platforms. The warnings that “SRF Investigativ” has received speak of fraudsters, terrorist financing and connections to Russia and Ukraine, for example. Such transactions are suspicious, according to the source.
Terrorism financing, quite heavy words. Ideally, the reliable source is a prosecutor, an INTERPOL Red Notice, or a court ruling. Then, it’s really easy to put terrorism financing next to a name, click send to editor and apero time!
But…ideal things rarely happen. The journalists had no prosecutor or judge as source, only an anonymous and protected source. The guy called terrorist financier started a defamation case that had some hiccups along the way. A judge ruled today against SRF journalists because the proof of “terrorism financing” was never shown to the judge.
I’d love to share an SRF article about the court ruling, but it doesn’t exist…go figure why. So, 2nd best: 20 min article.
What SRF published today is this. Sounds reasonable, but why publish something if it cannot be defended? Or was it just because they bet on the guy not fighting back?
SRF supports the reporting and takes note of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings with a penal order. In defamation proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the media professionals. This is sometimes in conflict with the protection of sources. In the present case, SRF cannot bring any further information into the proceedings without endangering the source. For this reason, no objection is being made. SRF protects informants and does not disclose sources of confidential information to criminal authorities (police, public prosecutor’s office, courts, etc.) (SRF journalistic guidelines 9.10). The journalists carefully and thoroughly checked their information in accordance with the requirements of SRF’s journalistic guidelines and the rules of the journalistic craft. For media ethics reasons, SRF was not prepared to disclose further information that would have jeopardized the protection of sources.
In any case, the average crypto guy has some history with the law. In this case it’s a cease & desist letter from FINMA to stop an ICO a couple years ago. But, one thing is doing securities trading without having a license under the Swiss financial market law, and a whole different thing is terrorism financing. Hopefully, journalists can tell the difference between securities fraud and terrorism financing, and also tell the difference between prosecutor and journalist jobs.
PS. in case you wonder, fines, compensation and legal costs will be paid by SRF, so make sure to pay SERAFE on time, they need it!