GENEVA – The rules of social assistance in Switzerland apply equally to all applicants, regardless of origin. When one of the recipients of support could not explain his financial circumstances, the regional office decided on a clear step: the return of thousands of euros.
Porsche and social assistance: hard rules
A man from Ukraine living in Switzerland with “S” protection will have to pay back a significant amount of money to the state. The reason is that after arriving in the country he had a luxury car at his disposal and during his stay he made several travel trips.
According to a newspaper report 24hours the Swiss authorities discovered that during the time he received social benefits, he owned an expensive Porsche Cayenne model and traveled to several European countries at the same time.
Investigating property and travel in Europe
A middle-aged man arrived in Switzerland in the summer of 2022 and was registered in the canton of Vaud. Two years later, the local social security office launched an investigation into suspected abuse of benefits or concealment of assets.
As part of the review, it was found that the value of his Porsche after deducting wear and tear was approximately CHF 37,452, which is about €41,200. In addition, bank statements showed that during his stay he received money in both franc and euro accounts and financed numerous trips to Austria, France, Italy, Germany, Portugal, Belgium and Luxembourg.
The authorities also recorded numerous payments to the airline company EasyJet and bookings through well-known accommodation platforms — the man claimed that he bought the tickets for others and that his friends made the bookings on request.
Stopping aid and obligation to return money
However, these explanations did not convince the officials. His social benefits were suspended until May 2025 on the grounds that his actual financial situation was not proven to be insufficient.
The canton also decided that it must return CHF 67,336.20, or approximately EUR 74,070, an amount considered to be wrongfully received social benefits.
Appeal dismissed
The man appealed against the suspension of benefits and the instruction to return the funds. However, according to the court’s decision, his standard of living did not correspond to what he declared to the authorities. The judges said the lifestyle he was able to afford did not show a lack of means of subsistence.
The judgment said that while the applicant may have believed he was acting correctly, “his good faith cannot be recognized”. The appeal was rejected.
