Another Wirecard day today and tomorrow. Oliver Bellenhaus is currently continuing to answer the very long list of questions that was submitted to him a year ago.

Bellenhaus continues to read out his answers quickly, very complex issues that are almost impossible to take down.

At the end of the reading of the questions, there is a scandal. VonErffa's lawyer requests that Bellenhaus' answers - if they are answers at all, according to the lawyer - are not to be used.

The background to this is that the questions were requested over a year ago. The presiding judge is outraged by this motion and complains that the defense, quote, "does not want to use the answers they themselves requested".

In response to multiple questions about his wife, Bellenhaus only said, quote, "I will not comment on my wife's assets".

In response to a question regarding a Handelsblatt article from December 23, 2022, which states that emails document that Oliver Bellenhaus met with Henry O'Sullivan in Dubai to show him where his "BINs (Bank Identification Numbers) are stored", Bellenhaus denies this.

He then throws a payment overview with Japanese yen onto the monitor and says that the decimal places clearly indicate that these are "all false entries".

Things get interesting when it comes to servers deleted in Vienna and the Elastic Engine. Bellenhaus confirmed in court that there had been two-factor authentication for the Wirecard cloud servers and that he had sent this second password to the public prosecutor's office after their request in 2020 (?).

Oliver Bellenhaus goes on to explain that he could not have switched off any of Wirecard's own servers in Vienna or Dubai, as they were located in separate rooms without a keyboard.

After the motion of the defense of vErffa about the non-utilization of the answers as set out above, there is a short break.

The trial then begins with the judge asking Oliver Bellenhaus, "Are you ready to go?" regarding some questions from Dr. Braun's defense from a calendar year ago about hard drives in his mother's home.

Bellenhaus throws photos of the hard disk enclosure on the monitor, circles the manufacturing date at the bottom right of the Seagate manufacturing template and says that the 2015 date on it would refute all accusations against him regarding the importance of these hard disks.

Dr. Braun's defence lawyer Dierlamm then has the floor and accuses Bellenhaus of being, quote, a "professional liar". It is a "scandal that the witness chosen by the prosecution takes a year to answer the questions put to him."

Real information is practically never provided by Bellenhaus, questioners are systematically discredited and their legitimate questions are regularly dismissed by him as "conspiracy theories" in order to avoid answers.

Information about CQR, Firstline and Pittodrie is in fact never given by Bellenhaus, nor about the allegedly known outflow of funds of 200 million euros there. Bellenhaus had mostly lied, he had lit "smokescreens".

"If the hard drives are not so important, why do you refuse to finally decrypt the data on them for everyone?" asks Dierlamm.

At the end of the hearing, a further motion by Dr. Braun's defence to stay the proceedings was rejected, among other things on the grounds that "the proceedings are scheduled until at least the end of 2024 and therefore there is sufficient time to investigate payment flows" and that "no surprising findings are to be expected from such investigations".

The judge stated that, quote, "with each of their applications [here for a stay of proceedings] their importance diminishes anyway".

Afterwards, the judge visibly enjoys investigating the recently announced insolvency of Dr. Braun's holding company.

It is discussed whether the mandates of Dr. Braun's current defense are secured on the judge's initiative. The judge also asks whether "a public defender must be appointed for the defendant [Dr. Braun]".

For your information: Public defenders are appointed by the court (!).

Lawyer Dierlamm calmly replies that they will sit down with the appointed insolvency administrator and discuss the matter promptly.