Facts
The case concerns a dispute between [W.] and the Public Prosecutor's Office as well as the Court of Cassation of the canton of Zurich. [W.] was convicted of complicity in fraud and was sentenced to a suspended prison sentence. He filed a public law appeal against the decision of the Court of Cassation, alleging a violation of the presumption of innocence. The Federal Court dismissed the appeal, considering that the limitation of its cognition to arbitrariness did not violate the presumption of innocence.
The facts of the case are as follows: the S. Bank in Switzerland granted a loan to the J. Co. Ltd. in Hong Kong, guaranteed by a bill of exchange from the [R. AG] in Vaduz. The loan was not repaid and the [R. AG] was declared bankrupt. [W.] was accused of complicity in fraud and was convicted by the Zurich district court.
Considerations
The Federal Court considered that the limitation of its cognition to arbitrariness in matters of presumption of innocence did not violate the presumption of innocence. It recalled that the presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of criminal law, which means that the accused is presumed innocent until their guilt is proven.
The Federal Court also considered that the limitation of its cognition to arbitrariness was compatible with cantonal law, in particular with Article 430 paragraph 1 number 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the canton of Zurich. It recalled that the presumption of innocence is a rule of evidence, which means that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution, and not with the accused.
The Federal Court further considered that the limitation of its cognition to arbitrariness was in…