Zurich (Helvilux) – The country Switzerland, known for top-class service and quality, is witnessing some of the most interesting and controversial developments in the canton of Zürich. A resident of Zürich with piles of evidence is now submitting a criminal case against Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich at the Public Prosecutor’s Office II in Zürich.
While speaking with Helvilux and showing all evidence, the victim said: “In Switzerland’s canton Zürich, the Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich is full of drama and manipulation, and unethical practices seem like a daily job of this department.”
To protect a particular Gemeinde’s former Asylkoordinator, Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich is reportedly putting in all its efforts and risking its own departmental reputation so that the crime and the Amtmissbrauch committed by the former official should not be exposed. Not just that in another case where AOZ (a public-sector company providing services in the migration sector in the canton of zurich) is involved in unethical practices. In this matter now, Social welfare office of the canton of zurich (Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich) is also allegedly committing office abuse by not providing the applicant’s complete file, which basically forms the complete Akten file of the applicant as a client.
The evidence held by Helvilux clearly shows that in the Bülach district municipality of Nürensdorf, ex-Asylkoordinator (now promoted as Head of Asylum department of Gemeinde Nürensdorf) Mr. Nihat Halis misused his official powers to make a resident homeless not once, but twice. The documents show tactics used against the victim, which included police pressure, an eviction order without appeal and without advanced notice, and psychological pressure, so that the matter would be buried in files instead of followed up.
Given the serious allegations of abuse of power within the asylum sector, a field directly affecting hundreds of highly vulnerable individuals dependent on state protection. Therefore, The identification of Mr. Nihat Halis by name and photograph as the current Head of the Asylum Department of Gemeinde Nürensdorf is clearly justified in the public interest and falls within the protected scope of press freedom.
Rental scam in Gemeinde operated social accommodation?
Evidence shows that a resident discovered illegal practices happening inside Gemeinde-operated accommodations in Nürensdorf, where several residents’ privacy and tenant rights were violated, and misuse of public funds occurred. When the resident complained against Gemeinde Nürensdorf and its former Asylkoordinator, in retaliation Herr Halis made the person homeless without any notice period. Although the accommodation was provided by the Gemeinde, officials without following proper procedure acted with what appears to be a cruel and retaliatory intent. Click here to see the eviction notice.
What is even more shocking is that when the victim called the police for assistance, a police officer from Kantonspolizei Zürich reportedly acted in a highly unprofessional manner. Instead of understanding the full context of the situation and carrying out his duties in accordance with the law, the officer allegedly signed the eviction notice and pressured the victim to leave their own accommodation. This disturbing incident suggests that even officers of Kantonspolizei Zürich may be complicit in the ongoing abuse of power.
Helvilux has previously reported on similar cases where Swiss police officers, disregarding legal procedures, have been implicated in criminal actions and the misuse of their official authority. Click here to read the article.
Mr. Halis allegedly did not stop there. To apply further pressure, he also filed a criminal defamation case against the applicant at Kloten police station, which he later quietly withdrew after several months.
Regarding the incident, the applicant submitted a complaint against Herr. Halis and Gemeinde Nürensdorf, and the case is still pending with the Public Prosecutor Office of Winterthur Unterland. Some communication between Gemeinde Nürensdorf and the residents is now held by the Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich. When the victim’s legal representative requested Akteneinsicht, Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich responded with what the applicant calls “cheap excuses”.
The victim told Helvilux, “There was mismanagement, corruption, violation of privacy and inhuman treatment happening in the social accommodation centers operated by Gemeinde Nürensdorf. I raised the flag and wrote to Mayor Christofer B. In that letter I also mentioned my intention to protest in front of the Gemeinde. Instead of solving the matter, Social Services Director Frau. Edith Betschart threatened me that she will make me homeless and Gemeinde would make criminal cases against me, and the next day Mr. Halis made me homeless. It was all planned. Since the election was near, they didn’t want the public to know how residents were being treated at Eigentalstrasse 11.”
In the police report, a very interesting allegation made by Mr. Halis can be seen. He claimed that the resident is ‘very complicated and difficult to deal with’ stating that the resident fundamentally distrusts any third party, especially authorities and their employees and regularly questions any actions taken by them.
But the documents held by Helvilux clearly show that the resident was asking the authorities about the unethical rental agreement, under which residents are being charged around 400 to 500 CHF per month, an amount ultimately coming from the pockets of Nürensdorf taxpayers. Despite this, the Gemeinde and its employees, including Mr. Halis, did not respond to him. When he later wrote to the Mayor and expressed his intention to protest against the Gemeinde, he was suddenly issued an eviction notice. How can a resident be expected not to distrust third parties, especially authorities and their employees, after such an experience?
The Helvilux investigative team also discovered that not only the former Asylkoordinator of Gemeinde Nürensdorf, but also additional officials and political members appear to be involved in this mistreatment. Therefore, an in-depth investigative report will soon be published by Helvilux, especially as Gemeinde elections in Nürensdorf are approaching and voters should be informed about what actually took place in the municipality, towards local residents, vulnerable people such as asylum seekers and those who are dependent on social welfare.
Recently, on 25 September 2025, Swiss newspaper ‘Dorfblitz’ published an article titled “SVP Representatives on the Municipal Council Are No Longer Running for Office” Click here to read the article. The article announced the resignation of Mayor Christoph Bösel after 20 years of service on the municipal council. Alongside him, Social Services Director Edith Betschart is also stepping down after completing two terms. This development places additional pressure on the Swiss People’s Party (SVP) to defend its positions in the upcoming elections in Nürensdorf.
Both Mayor Christoph Bösel and Social Services Director Edith Betschart are central figures in a series of ongoing complaints filed by the complainant, who has presented several cases and ongoing follow-ups, with the public prosecutor’s office still reviewing the evidence provided. The applicant, who has been pushing for accountability over mistreatment and manipulation within the Gemeinde Nürensdorf, sees the resignations of these two politicians as a small victory but insists that the real success will come when the public prosecutor officially begins investigations based on the extensive evidence submitted.
The victim emphasized, “While the resignation of Mayor Christoph Bösel and Social Service Director Edith Betschart is a step forward, the true victory will come when the public prosecutor takes real action against them for the mistreatment and manipulation that occurred in Gemeinde Nürensdorf. The real justice will be served when they are held accountable for the misuse of taxpayer’s funds.”
“I have no issue with the SVP as a party, there are many honest and ethical leaders within the SVP who are committed to preserving Swiss culture and developing and protecting both cities and country. However, when individuals misuse their official powers, that is where questions of accountability arise, and that is what needs to be addressed.” Victim added.
The way Mr. Halis Nihat handled the whole case, which resulted in the victim becoming temporarily without housing. After the intervention of the District Court of Bülach, the Gemeinde was required to arrange temporary accommodation for the applicant in Winterthur at the Heilsarmee facility. This solution cost the Gemeinde approximately 2970 francs for one month. As a result, the manner in which the situation was managed not only caused hardship for a resident but also led to unnecessary expenses for Nürensdorf taxpayers. Click here to see the invoice. Invoice 1 Invoice 2
The victim stated, “I was surrounded by people struggling with drug addiction, and every morning 9 am I was required to leave the shelter and return only in the evening 6 pm. It was a painful and difficult experience, and my only ‘crime’ was speaking the truth about how the Nürensdorf Gemeinde was committing fraud in a rental agreement. Because of this, I was placed in such a facility in Winterthur.”
Interestingly, while the SVP politicians from Gemeinde Nürensdorf involved in the controversy have resigned, the key figure, former Asylkoordinator Mr. Nihat Halis, has been promoted.
Despite allegations of abuse of office and mistreatment, Mr. Nihat Halis is now serving as Head of the Asylum Department and Deputy Head of the Social Welfare Department in Gemeinde Nürensdorf. In his latest LinkedIn post, he proudly announced his new position, raising serious concerns about accountability and the municipality’s handling of the matter. While politicians involved in the case resigned, the promotion of the accused gemeinde official sends a troubling message about the lack of consequences for those implicated in the scandal in Nürensdorf and in the canton of Zurich.
A civil claim against Gemeinde Nürensdorf has now been submitted to the District Civil Court of Bülach. Whether the victim will finally receive justice or whether the familiar dance of bureaucratic maneuvering will play out once again remains to be seen. Only time will tell if this chapter will shed light on the transparency of the Swiss judiciary or merely confirm its remarkable talent for creative procedural gymnastics.
The story does not end here.
The same pattern of refusing access to documents (Akteneinsicht) by Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich appears again in another case involving AOZ, a public entity now under scrutiny for unconstitutional and unethical practices.
In this case, the activist and legal representative showed Helvilux documents demonstrating how AOZ is violating hundreds of residents’ privacy rights and breaching tenancy law in the canton of Zurich. Individuals who depend on social welfare receive accommodation through the canton of Zurich, and AOZ is responsible for providing that housing, as most of the facilities are operated and maintained by them.
During the handover of keys and contract signing, AOZ provides a special “house rule” document included within the contract. Inside this document, a specific clause acts as a loophole which is against the residents fundamental right. That clause gives AOZ and third-party companies the right to enter resident’s homes at any time without proper notification or justification. When the applicant raised concerns about this clause, the applicant and their entire family were denied access to the apartment keys and were left on the street in a homeless situation for weeks.
Helvilux investigation team understand from the documents how AOZ was misinterpreting the Art. 9 AsylG of Switzerland into their favor to put that clause in their house rule.
Let’s see what does Art. 9 AsylG of Switzerland says,
But the interesting thing is that the accommodations which are provided by AOZ in city Zurich for the individuals who are dependent on social welfare are not coming under the federal asylum centres therefore that law is not applicable and normal Tenant Law applicable in general.
The victim later approached the Social Service office (Soziale Dienste) of the City of Zurich and simultaneously submitted a case to the City of Zurich Ombudsstelle. After continuous follow-up and intervention by Social services of city Zurich, AOZ offered temporary accommodation for one week and later arranged permanent housing for the victim. But till that time for several weeks the victim’s whole family was homeless and left on the street without shelter and other facilities therefore that was a degrading treatment they face in Switzerland. While providing the keys of the permanent accomodation AOZ also gave another special letter in which they mentioned that they or third party will never enter there house without prior notification.
After investigating the case, the City of Zurich Ombudsstelle stated the following in their report, ”Art. 9 AsylG search is not applicable to the present situation. It deals with the search for identity papers and drugs and dangerous objects. The purpose is on the one hand to identify a person, and on the other hand to ensure security in collective accommodation. The house rules of the AOZ, however, regulate access ”for setting up rooms, pending repair work and inspections,” namely for the property management of the AOZ and commissioned third party companies. It is therefore about the maintenance of the apartments and rooms and is not related to security issues or the asylum procedure itself. Social assistance provided during the asylum procedure is also subject to reimbursement (Art. 85 AsylG 18 AIV ZH). In this respect, accommodation in an apartment during the procedure also has tenancy law aspects. This would suggest that access to the apartment is governed by tenancy law.”
A civil claim has already been filed at the Administrative court of the canton of Zurich against AOZ. When the applicant’s legal representative requested Akten files from Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich as evidence are in the files, Sozialamt again refused to provide the Aktenfiles, giving the same type of justification. Click here to read the letter.
AOZ has often been at the center of local controversies. Recently, the FDP Zurich City opposed the planned interim use of the former Health Center for the Elderly in Leimbach, citing concerns that accommodating an additional 300–400 asylum seekers would strain the neighborhood’s infrastructure, affect integration, and displace seniors without a clear renovation plan. The party and local residents are calling for a socially responsible solution developed together with the community, highlighting the recurring debates around AOZ’s projects in the city. Click the link to read the article.
AOZ’s rapid growth has also prompted calls for stronger oversight. Recently, the Zurich City Parliament proposed gaining greater authority over AOZ, including approving board elections and overseeing contracts beyond its statutory obligations. This move reflects concerns about transparency, accountability, and the organization’s expanding budget and operations, underscoring ongoing public scrutiny and debate around AOZ’s role in the city. Click here to read the article which was published in Tagesanzeiger Swiss newspaper.
AOZ Policy : Strict Rules for Residents, Barriers for Churches
AOZ has faced criticism for imposing strict “house rules” on asylum accommodations, requiring residents to agree to clauses that allow AOZ and affiliated third parties to enter rooms at any time, effectively violating privacy and personal space. Yet, some years before paradoxically, the organization hesitates to grant free churches the simple permission to engage with residents for humanitarian or community activities, highlighting a double standard in how access and rights are managed within asylum centers. Recently an article was published in Jesus.ch titled as ‘Mission in the asylum centre How justified are the “concerns” of the cult experts?’. Click the link to read the article.
Reason given by Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich for refusing to provide the Akten files: “It is not possible to clearly determine who is requesting which files and for whom access is being requested. The applicant’s signature on the submitted power of attorney cannot be verified beyond doubt, as it differs from the signature in our records. This procedure ensures your security and prevents unauthorized access to sensitive data.”
Heivilux publish the letter for readers to read the response applicants and their legal representatives receive when requesting access to files (Akteneinsicht). Due to the scale of the scandal and the involvement of government employees in alleged illegal and unethical activities, the applicant fears for their safety and avoids visiting the office in person. While the legal representative has full rights to collect the documents, the Sozialamt Kanton Zürich has repeatedly withheld them, raising questions about why such hurdles are being imposed.
In one letter, the Sozialamt Kanton Zürich claimed that they had sent the requested files (Akteneinsicht) by registered mail. Countering this, the applicant’s legal representative said, “This is how they (authority) create drama. They send some ordinary documents while withholding the complete file, then use the postal receipt as ‘evidence’ that the files were delivered.” For this reason, the representative always requests digital copies via email, because postal delivery allows the authority to exploit loopholes. With digital copies, at least there is clear evidence if the authorities fail to provide the complete files.
To date, the applicant and his legal representative have requested the Akten files more than six times. Yet, the Social Welfare Office of the Canton of Zurich has still not clearly determined who is requesting which files. This delay appears to be a deliberate tactic to withhold evidence that could be crucial in cases of office abuse and other alleged misconduct by government officials in the canton of Zurich.
Sozialamts double-standard policy?
Documents reveal contradictions. When third-party contractors working for migration agencies request access to files, Sozialamt Kantonales Zurich reportedly gives files without hesitation. But when the applicant or their legal representative is an activist or someone exposing official misconduct, Sozialamt suddenly raises concerns about “sensitive data”.
Also, when AOZ, despite being a public body, forces refugees to sign house-rules that could violate privacy and tenancy rights, Sozialamt reportedly remains silent. Yet when the officials themselves are under scrutiny, social welfare office of the canton of Zurich becomes highly protective and refuses to disclose even legally requested files.
The Sozialamt of Kanton Zurich has placed unnecessary hurdles in providing applicants with their own files, which demonstrates a clear disregard for the principles of the access to information law in Switzerland.
Let’s see what the Swiss law says in this case
Laws applying to Akteneinsicht and access to public authority documents are clearly defined. According to Art. 312 of the Swiss Criminal Code (StGB), any abuse of official authority is punishable, which directly relates to withholding documents unlawfully. Art. 357f of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR) sets rules for tenancy termination and related rights, which often require access to official records. Art. 28 of the Swiss Civil Code (ZGB) ensures protection of personality, while Art. 13 of the Swiss Federal Constitution (BV) guarantees every person’s right to privacy. At the cantonal level, §20 of the Information and Data Protection Act (IDG) of Canton Zürich and Art. 17 of the Kantonsverfassung Zürich establish transparency and data access principles for authorities. Additionally, the Federal Administrative Procedure Act (VwVG) regulates access to procedural files during administrative procedures. Furthermore, Art. 8 of the Federal Constitution clearly states that all persons are equal before the law, and Art. 305ter StGB prohibits obstruction of justice, including any intentional withholding of evidence or files. Together, these provisions show that the applicant’s request for access to files is rooted in multiple legal guarantees intended to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability.
Based on these laws, requesting access to official documents (Akteneinsicht) is the applicant’s legal right. The refusal by social welfare office of the canton of zurich now raises larger questions:
Why did Sozialamt Kantonales Zurich take such risks that potentially expose the department to accusations of Amtmissbrauch?
The Helvilux investigative team analysed all submitted documents which is provided by the victim and confirmed that the files clearly show mismanagement by Gemeinde Nürensdorf’s former Asylkoordinator, and in another case that AOZ the public entity is accused of violating tenancy and privacy rights. So why is Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich withholding files that can further assist honest investigation at the prosecutor’s office, the administrative court and other courts in Switzerland?
Are cantonal social welfare offices protecting officials involved in office abuse in Switzerland?
Are cantonal social welfare offices part of a wider pattern of office abuse in the canton of Zurich?
These questions demand accountability.
Recently, Helvilux published a report showing how some Swiss police officers do office abuse and some prosecutors in Zürich, Switzerland attempt to protect accused police officials. Click here to read the report. Now this case raises another delicate issue, suggesting a wider pattern of mismanagement, authority misuse, and institutional protection.
Refusal letter interpreted as indirect threat
Applicant’s legal representative stated:
“In both cases, not only the former Asylkoordinator or the AOZ officer but also other government officials and political party leaders involved in office abuse matter (Amtmissbrauch). Therefore the authorities are trying hard and using various tactics to avoid releasing the Akten files.”
The applicant’s legal representative informed Helvilux that the Sozialamt’s refusal letter was intimidating and presented an indirect threat. Click to read the letter.
“We have been following up for several months now and we keep getting the same response from Sozialamt Kantonales Zürich. For safety reasons, a separate safety and protection request has been filed with Kantonspolizei Zürich. There are big politicians and government officials are involved in this all and our life could be in danger.” the victim and his legal representative said. Click to read the letter.
Public prosecutor office of the canton of Zurich – Where Justice Is Not Easily Accessible
The applicant’s legal representative submitted multiple requests to Gemeinde Nurensdorf seeking access to the applicant’s complete file (“Akteneinsicht”), including the rental agreement and additional documents detailing expenses incurred by the Gemeinde on various publicly relevant matters (the informations which should be available for public with respect to transparent governence). Despite these requests, the Gemeindeschreiber of Gemeinde Nurensdorf did not provide the requested documents.
After repeated follow-ups, the applicant’s legal representative filed a criminal petition alleging office abuse with the Public Prosecutor II of Canton Zurich. On 27 October 2025, the case was dismissed which received to applicant on 5 December 2025. Click here to read the decision.
The reasoning given as following, “Since bribery offenses are so-called abstract endangerment offenses, citizens are only considered indirectly affected. As a result, the applicant cannot be considered a victim with regard to these allegations, but only a complainant.”
A noteworthy detail is that the decision failed to include any information about the right to appeal. Click to read the decision last page. This omission raises serious concerns for the applicant regarding the transparency of the process and the apparent level of institutional protection enjoyed by certain officials in the Canton of Zurich, which in turn casts doubt on the integrity of the Swiss judiciary system. In fact, Helvilux previously published an article titled “A Troubling History: When Swiss Prosecutors Themselves Faced Corruption Allegations” shedding light on similar concerns. Click to read the article.
In the interest of ensuring a fair and balanced investigation with respect to PRESS Ethics of Luxembourg, Helvilux reached out to key individuals involved in this case for their official statements. Attempts were made to contact Mr. lic. iur. Thomas Aerne – Public Prosecutor of office II of the canton of Zurich, Mr. Rainer Linsbauer- the Amtschef of the Cantonal Social Welfare Office of Zurich, Herr Nihat Halis- the Head of the Asylum Department and Deputy Head of the Social Welfare Department in Gemeinde Nürensdorf, Town clerk (Gemeindeschreiber) of Municipality of Nuresndorf and also Herr. Marco Camus, Director of AOZ. Despite our efforts, no response was received from any of these individuals by the publication deadline.
Should these parties provide a response in the future, HELVILUX is committed to publishing their side of the story, ensuring transparency and fairness in the ongoing coverage of this matter.
Once known for its reputation of neutrality and integrity, Switzerland now finds itself making headlines for corruption, scandals, and institutional abuse of power. The question that remains is: What is really happening within the canton of Zürich?
A Dark Pattern of Official Abuse and Judicial Failures in Switzerland
Switzerland’s carefully cultivated image of neutrality, efficiency and impeccable human rights is increasingly contradicted by a series of damning international reports that document a persistent pattern of institutional mistreatment and impunity, with Canton Zurich repeatedly singled out.
In its latest Concluding Observations of 30 August 2024 (CAT/C/CHE/CO/8) Click on link to read the report, the UN Committee against Torture once again expressed serious concern over “persistent allegations of ill-treatment by law enforcement officials, in particular in the context of identity checks and arrests” and the continued absence of a fully independent investigation mechanism (para 18).
It specifically highlighted excessive use of force by Zurich police, deaths in custody without proper inquiry, the overly broad resort to coercive psychiatric measures, and degrading conditions in administrative detention for asylum seekers. Barely six months later, in March 2025, the UN Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/CHE/CO/9) (Report removed from public domain of UNHRC) reinforced these findings by criticising repeated police violence and racial profiling in Canton Zurich, the lack of independent complaint mechanisms, excessively long “super-provisional” pre-trial detention in Zurich prisons, and systemic discrimination against people with migration backgrounds when accessing social assistance.
The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), after its 2022 visit to Zurich police stations and detention centres (report published 2024), corroborated credible allegations of excessive force, ill-treatment during arrest and interrogation, and poor material conditions in migration detention facilities. Taken together and spanning more than a decade of almost identical recommendations that remain largely unimplemented, these authoritative UN and Council of Europe findings reveal not isolated incidents but a deeply entrenched pattern of official abuse, lack of accountability and institutional protectionism that now casts a long shadow over Switzerland’s reputation and over Canton Zurich in particular.
A troubling pattern of abuse by officials and a broken judiciary system reveals a darker side of the country. This issue extends beyond foreigners or asylum seekers, Swiss citizens have also been subjected to severe mistreatment by their own government. Up to the 1970s–1980s, tens of thousands of Swiss children and adults were forcibly removed from their families and placed in institutions, foster care, or prisons purely on administrative decision (no court judgment). Up to 60,000 individuals were disenfranchised or abused by state administrators simply because they did not conform to social norms. These victims fought for years to obtain compensation and recognition for the wrongs they endured. Reputable news outlet DW News reported on this issue. Click to watch the news video.
The ongoing issues surrounding the Sozialamt Kantonales Zurich, AOZ, and other local officials paint a concerning picture of mismanagement, cover-ups, and the erosion of accountability. The people, residents and citizens of Zürich, and Switzerland as a whole, deserve answers.
Will the authorities take the necessary steps to ensure justice and restore public trust, or will the system continue to protect those in power at the expense of transparency?
The coming months will likely reveal just how deep these problems run.
(This article is written by Mr. KAMATH M. the Publisher of HELVILUX, and all responsibility for its content rests with him. Legal jurisdiction is in Luxembourg.)
