Covid allowance abuses hit hundreds of firms

Context

TL;DR

• 7'200 companies audited out of more than 167'000 recipient companies
• SECO claimed 243,53 million in ILR
• Lastminute repaid 28,9 million in Ticino
• At the end of December 2025, 133,7 million remained outstanding

Key facts

• Companies checked → 7'200
• Total benefits → more than 16 billion francs
• Recoveries claimed by SECO → 243,53 million
• Lastminute in Ticino → 28,9 million repaid
• Evident abuses → 171 checks
• Unintentional errors → approximately 1'200 companies

The scope of the checks

7'200 companies were subjected to review by the Confederation as part of checks into suspected abuses of short-time work compensation (ILR) paid during the coronavirus pandemic. The review covered a total of more than 167'000 companies which, overall, received more than 16 billion francs.

The State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO) has completed the checks and, according to the assessment reported by SonntagsBlick, considered the result positive. The formula used to describe it is this:

«For every franc paid out, it was possible to claim back eight francs».

As of last October 2, SECO's checks had led to claims for 243,53 million francs in ILR. The checks entrusted to external auditors had cost 31,36 million. The Sunday paper, however, pointed out two caveats: the calculations would not include internal costs, and the word «claim» does not mean that the money has already been received.

The recovery, in fact, does not take place directly through SECO. The unemployment funds collect it and, through their own investigations, claimed another 430 million. Adding the two amounts, the total claim reaches 680 million; at the end of December 2025, 133,7 million were still outstanding. The newspaper specifies that no more recent data are available.

One particularly significant case concerns Lastminute, an online travel operator active in Ticino, forced to repay 28,9 million. In 171 checks, SECO gathered evidence of «evident abuses» and referred each case to the competent cantonal prosecutors' offices. For approximately 1'200 companies, by contrast, the auditors attributed the irregularities to unintentional errors.

Operational details

What the figures indicate

The practical point for a company, public body or reader is to distinguish the entity that conducts the checks from the one that recovers the money. SECO verified the cases and quantified some of the claims; the unemployment funds conducted their own investigations and claimed additional amounts. To interpret a dispute or a set of accounts, adding the figures without indicating the source creates an incomplete picture: the total of 680 million is not presented as a sum that has already been collected in full.

Three levels not to be confused

This distinction changes how the impact on the unemployment insurance accounts is understood. The amounts claimed show the size of the claims; the amounts received would measure the actual recovery. The source notes that the second figure is not available for the amount attributed to SECO and that, in the overall picture, a portion remained outstanding at the end of 2025.

The relationship between checks and irregularities also calls for caution. The 171 cases involving clear abuses concern audits in which, according to SECO, there was evidence. These findings cannot be placed on the same footing as the approximately 1'200 cases classified as unintentional errors. The distinction matters for the companies involved: in the source, intentional fraud and error are not equivalent categories.

Geographically and by sector, Lanzeray rules out any particular concentration: according to his statement, the propensity for fraud would not depend on a specific industry or region. Therefore, the Lastminute case in Ticino is relevant because of the amount repaid, but the source does not present it as evidence of an anomaly specific to the canton.

The cost of external auditors adds another angle. The 31,36 million cited do not include, according to the Sunday paper, internal costs. Comparing this with the amount claimed is therefore not enough to describe a final net balance. For anyone following the case, the right question is not simply how much money was claimed: one must ask which investigation the amounts belong to, what date they refer to and whether they are described as receivables or collections. The same figure changes meaning if it concerns an outstanding claim or a repayment that has already taken place.

Key points

How to verify a figure on ILR

For a reader who needs to check a piece of news, or for a company that wants to understand how to read a dispute, the safest approach is to separate the steps. This is a reading framework built on the available data, not a legal procedure.

1. Identify the body. Note whether the amount is attributed to SECO or to unemployment funds: the two entries derive from different checks.

2. Fix the date. For SECO data, the reference is last October 2; for amounts still outstanding, the snapshot is as of the end of December 2025.

3. Read the verb. To claim indicates a request for repayment; the source warns that this does not automatically mean a payment was received.

4. Separate the outcomes. Clear-cut abuse backed by evidence must be kept distinct from an involuntary error. In the former cases, SECO filed complaints with the competent cantonal prosecutors' offices.

5. Check the scope. A single case should not be used to attribute a propensity for fraud to a sector or region: Lanzeray does not identify any particular concentrations.

Where the source stops

This method avoids the first reading error: turning a request into a payment received. It also avoids confusing a check with the outcome of a complaint. The article reports that, in cases of clear-cut abuse, the cantonal prosecutors' offices received complaints; however, it does not describe what happened next in the proceedings.

For a single company, then, the point to establish is the nature of the outcome: clear-cut abuse with evidence or involuntary error. The source does not indicate forms, documents, deadlines or procedures for challenging a request, so these elements cannot be inferred from the overall results of the checks alone.

Anyone assessing the recovery of benefits should also keep the subject, date, verb and status of the amount separate. The reference to the most recent data remains what the newspaper stated: they are not available. Until an item is merely claimed, the headline does not amount to a completed recovery.

Source: tio.ch