A more correct title would be "Switzerland was foolish enough to make a contract for purchasing weapons from USA that allows USA to raise a lot the price of the weapons, by a few billions, while also delaying their delivery by several years".
The article contains a passage that indicates the contract was inked four years ago and that the U.S.A. subsequently informed Switzerland that the conditions for fulfilling the contract had changed. So, your suggested title doesn't work.
''Officials say this structure allows Washington to reallocate funds between procurement programmes. In this case, money originally intended for Switzerland’s F-35 fighter jet programme has reportedly been used to cover shortfalls in the Patriot missile system contract.''
This seems a bit like a Ponzi scheme to me. Change a few words and you'll see what I mean:
''Officials say this structure allowed the defendant to reallocate funds between procurement programmes. In this case, money originally intended for a client's purchase of a night club had reportedly been used to cover shortfalls in the defendant's collection of luxury automobiles.''
Ponzi schemes have multiple participants and concealment. This is literally nothing like a Ponzi scheme apart from the fact that money moves from one concern to another. And even that's only on an accounting basis; it's all going to the one entity.
"US adheres to the terms of its contract with Switzerland" wasn't as exciting a title, I suppose.
A more correct title would be "Switzerland was foolish enough to make a contract for purchasing weapons from USA that allows USA to raise a lot the price of the weapons, by a few billions, while also delaying their delivery by several years".
The article contains a passage that indicates the contract was inked four years ago and that the U.S.A. subsequently informed Switzerland that the conditions for fulfilling the contract had changed. So, your suggested title doesn't work.
''Officials say this structure allows Washington to reallocate funds between procurement programmes. In this case, money originally intended for Switzerland’s F-35 fighter jet programme has reportedly been used to cover shortfalls in the Patriot missile system contract.''
This seems a bit like a Ponzi scheme to me. Change a few words and you'll see what I mean:
''Officials say this structure allowed the defendant to reallocate funds between procurement programmes. In this case, money originally intended for a client's purchase of a night club had reportedly been used to cover shortfalls in the defendant's collection of luxury automobiles.''
Ponzi schemes have multiple participants and concealment. This is literally nothing like a Ponzi scheme apart from the fact that money moves from one concern to another. And even that's only on an accounting basis; it's all going to the one entity.