They knew the bar could catch fire. They accepted it.
On the last night of 2024, a fire consumed a bar in the Swiss Alps and took forty-one lives — most of them young — in the span of minutes. Now, as grief hardens into legal reckoning, the families of the dead are asking a court to look past accident and negligence toward something more deliberate: a known danger, left in place, with consequences accepted. The question before Swiss prosecutors is one humanity has long struggled to answer — where does carelessness end and culpability begin.
- Forty-one people, most of them teenagers, died when sparklers ignited flammable ceiling foam at a New Year's Eve celebration in Crans-Montana — a fire that spread with devastating speed through Le Constellation bar.
- A WhatsApp message from 2019 has become the pivot point of the case: bar owner Jessica Moretti warned her own staff that sparklers near the foam could burn the bar down — five years before it did exactly that.
- Victims' lawyers are now pressing prosecutors to upgrade charges from manslaughter by negligence to murder with possible intent, arguing the Morettis knew the risk and chose to accept it rather than eliminate it.
- The defense pushes back hard, noting that Jessica Moretti was inside the bar that night — a fact they call the most powerful argument against the claim she would knowingly have accepted a mortal outcome.
- Swiss law sets a precise and demanding threshold: possible intent requires proving not just awareness of risk, but a conscious acceptance of the worst result — a distinction that could mean the difference between years and decades behind bars.
On New Year's Eve 2024, sparklers attached to champagne bottles were held too close to sound-insulating foam in the basement of Le Constellation bar in the Swiss ski resort of Crans-Montana. The foam caught fire. Forty-one people died — most of them teenagers — and 115 more were injured.
More than a year on, the legal battle over who bears responsibility has reached a critical juncture. Lawyers representing victims' families have formally asked prosecutors to upgrade charges against bar owners Jessica and Jacques Moretti from manslaughter by negligence to murder with possible intent — a far graver accusation requiring proof that the couple knew of the danger and accepted it.
The case rests heavily on a WhatsApp message Jessica Moretti sent to bar staff in 2019, five years before the fire. In it, she warned that sparklers near the carpet, sofas, or ceiling foam could set the bar ablaze. Victims' lawyer Sophie Haenni told Swiss public broadcaster RTS that this message proves the Morettis were fully aware of the foam's flammability — and that awareness, she argues, amounts to accepted risk.
The Morettis' defense team has called the murder allegation nonsense. Their lawyers note that Jessica Moretti was present in the bar on the night of the fire — framing her own presence as evidence that she could not have knowingly accepted a mortal outcome for herself and others. A separate new charge of document forgery, related to the invoice for the foam panels, was also dismissed by her lawyers as a minor clerical matter.
The investigation reaches beyond the couple: twelve other suspects, including current and former local officials, remain under criminal scrutiny. What now rests with prosecutors in Valais canton is whether a five-year-old warning message clears the precise legal bar Swiss law sets for intent — and whether the deaths of forty-one people will be judged as tragedy, negligence, or something closer to a foreseeable end.
On New Year's Eve 2024, a fire tore through Le Constellation bar in the Swiss ski resort of Crans-Montana, killing 41 people and injuring 115 others. Most of the dead were teenagers. Investigators determined the blaze started in the basement when sparklers attached to champagne bottles were held too close to sound-insulating foam on the ceiling—foam that ignited and spread the fire with terrible speed.
Now, more than a year later, lawyers representing some of the victims have made a formal request that prosecutors upgrade the criminal charges against the bar's owners, Jessica and Jacques Moretti. Currently, the couple faces charges of manslaughter by negligence and arson by negligence. The victims' lawyers want those charges elevated to murder with possible intent—a far more serious accusation that would require proving the Morettis knew of the danger and accepted the risk anyway.
The request hinges on text messages that emerged during a recent court hearing. In 2019, five years before the fire, Jessica Moretti sent messages through a WhatsApp group to bar staff warning them to be careful with sparklers. She specifically cautioned that if the carpet, sofas, or ceiling foam caught fire, the bar would burn. Sophie Haenni, a lawyer representing the family of an employee who died in the blaze, told the public broadcaster RTS that these messages prove the Morettis were "perfectly aware of the highly flammable nature of the acoustic foam." She argued to prosecutors that the couple "knew the bar could catch fire. They were aware of the risk and they accepted it."
The Morettis' defense team has rejected this interpretation entirely. Their lawyers, Yaël Hayat and Nicola Meier, called the allegations "nonsense" and posed a rhetorical challenge: "How can anyone argue that the Morettis foresaw a mortal risk? Worse still, that they would have accepted it?" They pointed out that Jessica Moretti was present in the bar on the night of the fire itself—an argument they framed as the strongest possible alibi against the charge that she knowingly accepted the risk of deaths.
Under Swiss criminal law, the concept of "possible intent" carries a specific meaning. It exists when someone considers an offense possible but acts anyway, accepting the result if it occurs, even if they judge it undesirable and do not wish it. This is the legal threshold the victims' lawyers are asking prosecutors to prove.
The case extends beyond the Morettis. Another 12 suspects, including several current and former local officials, are under criminal investigation related to the fire. At the June hearing where the WhatsApp messages were presented, Jessica Moretti was also notified of a new charge: forgery relating to the invoice for the sound-insulating foam panels. Her lawyers dismissed this as a clerical matter, saying the 2015 document had "simply been recorded in the accounts under a different name" and was irrelevant to the case.
The public prosecutor for Valais canton confirmed that the formal request to upgrade charges was submitted by lawyers Sophie Haenni and Ludovic Tirelli following the couple's cross-examination by investigating magistrates in Sion. What happens next depends on whether prosecutors agree that the evidence—particularly those 2019 text messages—meets the legal threshold for murder with possible intent rather than negligence. The distinction is not merely semantic. It determines whether the Morettis could face decades in prison or significantly shorter sentences.
Citas Notables
The Morettis knew the bar could catch fire. They were aware of the risk and they accepted it. The charge should no longer be negligence but murder with possible intent.— Sophie Haenni, lawyer for victims' families
How can anyone argue that the Morettis foresaw a mortal risk? Worse still, that they would have accepted it?— Yaël Hayat and Nicola Meier, lawyers for the Morettis
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why would a text message from 2019 about being careful with sparklers suddenly become evidence of murder rather than negligence?
Because it shows prior knowledge. Jessica Moretti wasn't just warning staff to be safe—she was specifically naming the exact materials that would burn and the exact scenario that would cause a catastrophe. That's not a general safety reminder. That's someone who understood the specific risk.
But couldn't she have just been being cautious? Lots of bar owners warn staff about fire hazards without intending harm.
True, but the lawyers argue the intent question is different. She knew. She warned. Then five years later, the exact thing she warned about happened. The question becomes: did she accept that risk anyway by not fixing the problem?
Her lawyers say she was there that night. Doesn't that prove she didn't want anyone to die?
That's their strongest argument, actually. But presence at the scene doesn't prove you didn't accept a known risk. You can be present and still have made negligent choices beforehand.
What does Swiss law actually require to prove murder with possible intent?
You have to show the person knew the danger existed and acted anyway, accepting that deaths might occur—even if they didn't want them to. It's a narrower claim than premeditation but broader than simple negligence.
So the prosecutors have to decide if a five-year-old text message is enough to cross that line?
Exactly. That's the whole case now.