Sun24 Press

Second Episode: The Court Trial's Beginning

Another episode of the 'Wirecard Sacked' podcast, this season 1 is about detailed insider accounts of the proceedings in Munich's Stadelheim prison courtroom

that have been going on for well over a year.

This is the second episode about the Wirecard trial.

Contents:
The pattern was knitted (→ 0:41)
Hey, we are seeing hundreds of millions (→ 02:41)
The Bundestag committee (→ 04:18)
Braun did not say nothing (→ 06:01)
The process start (→ 08:22)
It was clear to me that not all would be solved (→ 09:31)
First days in court (→ 10:32)
The indictment (→ 11:36)
The first process weeks (→ 12:44)
The motion to dismiss proceeding (→ 14:01)

Loading audio...

Season 1, Episode 2

Wirecard Sacked - The Court Trial's Beginning

00:00

Here our article to the appearance of three former BaFin representatives in front of the Wirecard Bundestag committee from April 2021:
BaFin The Thirteenth - An April 13th day at the Wirecard investigational committee

Previous
Episode 1 - The Start

Next
Episode 3 - The Motions

Transcript 

(Music) 

Wirecard Sacked, the Sun24 Press Podcast, Season 1, Episode 2. 

Jörg: From this I drew the logical conclusion that the public prosecutor's office examined this and did not consider it significant. And I think that was a very decisive point later on, that Braun's defense was not presented neutrally from the very beginning, that its content was suppressed. 

Martin: So that means that the pattern was more or less knitted, that is, through the months in the committee of inquiry, through the final decision, the final report of the Wirecard and so on from Berlin, through the highest political blessing, a certain pattern was knitted, which was then further knitted by early mass media reports. Is that right? Can you put it that way? 

Jörg: Yes, well, I'm not so critical at this point, as we know. I say it just came about, so maybe we can talk about it in more detail later. 

Martin: My role is a bit different, I'm a bit of a researcher because I'm on the opposite pole to the journalistic side. 

Jörg: Yes, so I'm just trying to be neutral about what you can say. What you can say is that Braun's defense statements were suppressed. Everything Braun said was victim narrative and his millionaire lawyer Dierlamm, which I also saw at the time. Markus Braun said in this press conference, where everyone laughed it off, that Wirecard may have been the victim of a large-scale fraud. That was in mid-June. On June 19, after he hadn't slept for two days and everyone made fun of it. I laughed about it too. That was the day James Freis came in. Yes, exactly, and everyone laughed their heads off about this typical Braun thing, oh yes, Braun again. But he later fleshed it out. There were indeed, there were also certain changes in his defense strategy, he initially assumed that you had to look for the money somewhere, i.e. the money in the trust accounts, that was the beginning, but there was a change and that was not presented in the media either. Because relatively early on, Markus Braun said quite clearly, hey, we see millions, many millions and hundreds of millions running through accounts and we suspect that this is embezzled money. Money that Wirecard would have been entitled to. If this theory is correct, we have a completely different case than what the PUA dealt with and the whole presentation would be completely wrong and it has hardly been discussed to this day, that is, at Bayerischer Rundfunk a little bit, otherwise it is not really discussed.

It goes so far that even an FT journalist, I don't know, can I name names? Well, Olaf S. Olaf S. from the Financial Times, who wrote about Wirecard together with McCrum back in 2018 and therefore actually has a high expert rank and therefore also a high level of responsibility, in my opinion, he publicly discredited an article by Lena Kampf and Georg Maskulow on Twitter in November 2021 and wrote that it was nonsense and that you were falling for Braun's defense strategy. In hindsight, at the time, I thought, yeah, yeah, right. From today's perspective, from today's perspective, in the position of Olaf S. from the Financial Times, a tweet like that is unacceptable to colleagues. 

Martin: From today's perspective, you have to agree with that. I have to say that I was completely taken in by the results of the investigative committee in Berlin and more or less accepted what it said without criticism. I went there myself, I think, twice, once, yes twice, the first time was in April 2021 and that was just the day when three Bafin people were questioned, including the former head of Bafin, Felix Hufeld, and so I witnessed on site what was discussed and investigated there and then, of course, this committee of inquiry was very impressive, politicians, high-ranking people, experts from all parties, from the extreme left to the extreme right, I think the head was even someone from the AfD, Kai Gottschalk, yet the entire landscape, including the media landscape, applauded this committee of inquiry and I did too, it had to be done from a neutral perspective.

Jörg: Another thing that I assessed differently in retrospect was Braun's testimony. It was said everywhere that Braun had said nothing. They paraded this man for I don't know how long and he simply said, I'm not saying anything.

However, he did say that he was relying on the public prosecutor's office to investigate the matter and to look into the money that was lost. After all, that was a substantive statement that didn't play a role anywhere because people said it was just a story. It's not true, so that's a very important point. He didn't say nothing. And a second point about the PUA is that the way the witnesses were dealt with was very different. So I think who else was there with Braun, the secretary or? 

Martin: Yes, on the same day that Markus Braun testified, his personal secretary also came and of course she chatted in a casual tone, I'll say, with a few internals. Very casually. Very and also internal things that were then actually pushed in the reports, especially from this one day in the Wirecard Committee of Inquiry on which Dr. Braun testified. 

Jörg: If I may interrupt you, in principle he actually only said this one sentence. But he also said that he wouldn't testify because he would only testify at the public prosecutor's office. And I seem to remember that he even said he could come back. I'm not quite sure about that. I think he said it. So von Erffa said it in any case. Bellenhaus also said he would come, but he never showed up. And I think Bellenhaus, I read the minutes, Bellenhaus was treated like he was being courted by the investigating committee. And that is also very questionable in retrospect when you think about neutrality. From today's perspective, it has to be said, absolutely. But we'll certainly get to that in a moment. 

Martin: Can we make a quick jump from March, April 2020, when there was this second presentation by the public prosecutor, 2021, sorry, 2022. And then the jump, yes. Then the jump to the start of the trial in the brand-new, just practically completed courtroom of the prison of, the famous, it must be said, Munich Stadelheim prison.

Jörg: Well, first of all, the hall is always portrayed as a basement hall. It's not, it's relatively bright. 

Martin: Well, it's a beautiful hall. 

Jörg: All right, fine. But it's a courtroom, there's not even a Justitia in it, there should be a Justitia in a courtroom. All right, but those are details. 

Martin: Just like Jesus belongs in the church. Maybe even more than that, but well, let's not get into a discussion about religion. Some people protest, but let's not. 

Jörg: Sorry, sorry, sorry guys, sorry guys. I went into this trial relatively relaxed. I thought to myself, the prosecution, everything is clear, the case is completely clear.  The case, let's say, the trial will never uncover Wirecard in as much detail as I would. So I didn't go there expecting everything to be cleared up. But I thought the public prosecutor's office would now pong, pong, pong, one piece of evidence after another. It started right away with Bellenhaus. And I thought that in three weeks Markus Braun would be small, like, I don't know, chopped up. 

Martin: Interesting to hear, because my perception was of course a little different. Because I was there from the very first day of the trial and I sat down and said, this is just a continuation and confirmation of what was previously presented in the committee of inquiry and in the years before by the prosecution's indictment. I think you already had it on your mind back then that something might not be quite kosher. 

Jörg: Wait a minute, I wouldn't say kosher at the time. It was just like that, imagine I had an insane amount of knowledge and I knew that not everything would be explained in detail. I'm often accused of this later, when people say that you had too many expectations during the process. No, I didn't. I actually had the impression that I would sit back and see how the millionaire lawyer Dierlamm would now defend himself against the flood of evidence from the public prosecutor's office. That was roughly my expectation when the process began. That expectation didn't quite work out, but we'll get to that. 

Martin: As I said, it was a bit different for me. Exciting, yes. I wasn't even expecting this flood of evidence or this flood. I was expecting the defense to go more in the direction of damage limitation. I came here from a completely different angle. Very interesting, in any case. You were there on the first day? 

Jörg: No, no, no. 

Martin: You weren't at the first trial. I was at the first one. Exciting, exciting. The first, second and then the third day in January. 

Jörg: But Dierlamm intervened immediately. 

Martin: Not quite immediately. I think you were already back by then. The first day of the trial went as follows: after the statement and the public chatter, the public prosecutor's office took the floor. And the public prosecutor's office not only spoke on the first day of the trial in December 2022, but also on the second, which I think took place in January. There was also a brief illness immediately. The judge reported that he had a cold. He probably was, as you could see and hear in the courtroom in mid-January. But on the first two days of the trial, not just the first, but also the second, no one else spoke, or should I say read out, other than the public prosecutor's office.

The Munich public prosecutor's office used a total of three hoarse prosecutors to read out this insanely detailed indictment for a total of five hours on each of these days, over five hours on two days, with a short lunch break and perhaps breaks of five to ten minutes in between. 

Jörg: Yes, I have to say that if you look at this indictment carefully, it's not that detailed. I'm not going to give a lecture on the indictment now. But it's basically just a 450, 70, 80-page expanded version of what Leyding actually said back in July 2020. And that's one point. And I have to say something about the public prosecutor's office, because I wasn't there on both days. But apparently the public prosecutor's office had already ticked off its speaking time, because afterwards the public prosecutor's office was completely passive. And I can't remember any substantive contribution from the public prosecutor's office after those two days. 

Martin: Right. I think that's when, from then on, from February at the latest, I would say I slipped into your line a bit. 

Jörg: No, I wasn't there yet. 

Martin: From what I hear now, I think you were already a bit further along than you. So you joined in mid-January. 

Jörg: Exactly, exactly. That's when I think I saw you a few times. I think I still heard Braun. 

Martin: The courtroom was also packed at the time. So in the first five, six, seven hearings, one of the aforementioned Olaf St. from the FT was there permanently and regularly. I don't think Dan McCrum was there? 

Jörg: No. 

Martin: No, of course not. Many of the German media, from Handelsblatt, Wirtschaftswoche, they were all there regularly for a few weeks, always Wednesday, Thursday are usually the court dates. So, and then after these first two court hearings, where the public prosecutor's office had their hoarse public prosecutors, who then had to take lozenges to cure their vocal chords, things really took off, didn't they? 

Jörg: I really need to check the data again. Bellenhaus was there for three days. But at some point, Dierlamm filed a motion to dismiss the case. 

Martin: That's right, it came quite soon. I think it was the third or fourth. 

Jörg: That was before the illness. I don't remember the exact days. 

Martin: I was there at the beginning of February and that's when things really took off. 

Jörg: Exactly. And Dierlamm has always said that. And there was an interview with Dierlamm in the Handelsblatt, where he mentions an extensive non-opening motion, which I think is 300 pages long. It is by no means the case that Markus Braun said nothing, but there were very clear statements. There were also statements from von Erffa. And then there's that. He was the very first person to testify on June 25. That will also play a role later on. But let's come back to that. Before the trial began, there was a 300-page non-opening motion that nobody knows. And I don't believe that it did just contain the phone book.

Speaker:
Jörg - longtime Wirecard expert and investigator
Martin - Investigative lead at Sun24 Press and Wirecard expert

Organization and realization:
Sun24 Press

Wirecard Sacked

Episode 2

00:00

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 10 - Final

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 9

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 8

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 7

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 6

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 5

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 4

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 3

Wirecard Sacked

The Court Proceeding - Season 1, Episode 1

The Wirecard Summer Gap

About extorted confessions and Bavarian radio news

Money launding is not my thing

About Commerzbank and cancelled Wirecard credit lines

Wirecard Chances

About supervisory board advising lawyers

The Wirecard PR Court

About an obscure questioning of a Wirecard lawyer

Wirecard Rogue

About crazy judiciary talks and on-target court motions

Wirecard Untangled

About unsolved issues in Germany's master finance scandal

La Vie en Wirecard

About strong Spanish financial analyses and weak French allegations

All Inside The Singapore Folder

About Wirecard book keepings an email conversations

Grand Vision Trust

A Wirecard Bank Director and Relationship Managements

Mount Interim

About a Wirecard interim-CEO on a Swiss rose mountain

Harvesting Wirecard

About Swiss roses and Wirecard bears

The PayLondon Group

About bears from London and Wirecard targetings

Mount Acronis

About a Swiss IT sponsor and Wirecard entanglements

Magic Pav

About a Wirecard whistleblower and magic law firms

The Trial

About a Wirecard release of prisoner and Franz Kafka's unfinished works

The Grand Orchestra

About Wirecard's share price and dolphins against sharks

Mount Wirecard

About Swiss Wirecard entanglements and the remains of Crypto AG

Wirecard Court Halftime

About seven months in Munich Stadelheim and the miracle of Bern

Pandora's Box

About Wirecard's IT Architectures

The Third Man

About Wirecard's interim CEO James Freis and nice shoes

Deflective Attorneys

About a five hours Wirecard indictment

Bavariacard

About a Germanic Wirecard Poker

A Munich Fraud

Wirecard and Munich's Public Prosecutor's Office

Royal Courts of Wirecard

About a Wirecard Lawsuit and Quantum Physics

Brilliant Consultants

About Wirecard's financial auditors and the chess game

Back To The Wirecard

About the roots of the insolvent German payment provider

BaFin The Thirteenth

An April 13th day at the Wirecard investigational committee