Gobbi case, two officers at risk of dismissal

Context

TL;DR

• Two of the three officers could face dismissal.
• The investigation concerns official secrecy.
• Pronzini and Dadò were questioned by Andrea Pagani.
• The two politicians deny having received confidential information.

Case → Gobbi case Agents involved → three officers of the cantonal police Hypothesis → violation of official secrecy Disciplinary risk → dismissal for two officers Location of the accident → Leventina

The allegation

On October 9, 2026, the Gobbi case is back in the spotlight in Bellinzona: two of the three cantonal police officers under investigation could face dismissal. RSI reports that a disciplinary measure was being considered for the two officers. The investigation into the alleged violation of official secrecy is still ongoing.

The inquiries concern the possible obtaining and dissemination of confidential information about the accident that occurred in Leventina and involved State Councillor Norman Gobbi, as part of the so-called Gobbi case; among those who may have received it are a journalist, an insurer and two politicians.

They are Grand Council members Matteo Pronzini and Fiorenzo Dadò: in 2024, both had submitted parliamentary documents concerning the case.

In recent weeks, Attorney General Andrea Pagani questioned the two lawmakers as persons informed of the facts. Pronzini and Dadò both denied having received confidential information from the officers. Moreover, the checks reportedly found no concrete evidence against Dadò.

The possible disciplinary measure concerns two of the three officers, while the investigation concerns the entire group. The allegation cited in the investigation is the alleged violation of official secrecy.

The investigation remains open, and a disciplinary measure has been proposed for two police officers. The news was updated on October 10, 2026, following its publication on October 9.

Operational details

The hearings and the dismissal order

The people interviewed

The inquiries involved people who played different roles in the matter. Among the possible recipients of the confidential information are a journalist, an insurance agent and Grand Councillors Matteo Pronzini and Fiorenzo Dadò. The two politicians had submitted parliamentary motions on the matter in 2024.

In recent weeks, Andrea Pagani, the Attorney General, heard Pronzini and Dadò as persons informed about the facts. Both denied having received confidential information from the officers. As for Dadò, moreover, the inquiries reportedly uncovered no concrete elements against him.

A journalist and an insurance agent were also heard as persons informed about the facts. Both are among the possible recipients of the information identified in the inquiries. A dismissal order was subsequently issued in respect of the insurance agent.

The dismissal order represents the specific development reported concerning the insurance agent. For the two Grand Councillors, by contrast, the account reports the hearing before the Attorney General, their status as persons informed about the facts and their denials. In Dadò’s case, it adds that the inquiries reportedly failed to uncover concrete elements against him.

The account thus separates the steps concerning the various people heard: on the one hand, Pronzini and Dadò’s statements; on the other, the hearing of the journalist and the insurance agent, followed, in the latter’s case, by the dismissal order. All these elements form part of the inquiries into the possible collection and dissemination of confidential information.

Key points

The origin of the investigations

The Monteggio radar

The investigations that led to the inquiry concerned one of the police officers, who was suspected of having damaged a radar in Monteggio with gunshots. That incident is therefore identified as the origin of the case file and of the investigations into the police officer.

Analysis of his phone had revealed contacts with Matteo Pronzini even before the Gobbi case became public. The contacts therefore predated the public disclosure of the affair. This emerged from analysis of the device and falls within the phase of the investigations that preceded the public disclosure of the case.

The analysis of the phone is described together with the contacts with Pronzini, while the Monteggio radar remains the incident from which the investigations into the police officer began. Among the people informed of the facts who were interviewed were also a journalist and an insurance agent. Subsequently, a dismissal order was issued for the insurance agent. Their hearing is among the elements referred to in the investigation.

All three officers dispute the allegations made against them. The presumption of innocence remains valid for each of them. The possible dismissal of two police officers was presented as a possible disciplinary measure, while the investigation into an alleged violation of official secrecy is still ongoing.

The sequence described proceeds from the suspicion regarding the Monteggio radar to the analysis of the phone and the contacts with Pronzini that preceded the public disclosure of the case. The developments reported do not close the investigation: they confirm that the investigations are still open and that, for the three officers, the allegations remain rejected and accompanied by the presumption of innocence.

Source: tio.ch