[ad_1]
Attorney Manfred Ainedter spoke of a “litigation of the century.” This was accompanied by a media bias against Grasser. Ainedter accused of lying. There was praise for Judge Marion Hohenecker.
The judge was heavily criticized by Ainedter and Grasser’s second attorney, Norbert Wess, early in the trial. They saw her embarrassed by her husband’s tweets and asked for her transfer. Wednesday sounded different: he thanked him for the “extremely fair and objective litigation.” “I have already experienced something completely different,” said the experienced defense attorney.
Ainedter emphasized that only an acquittal of all charges could be the result of this main hearing. The prosecution had “feet of clay” from the beginning. The indictment was littered with accusations that the prosecution wanted to portray Grasser as the “Harry Potter of privatizations.” The statements of the lead prosecutors in his plea were “smoke and mirrors.”
In his shooting, Ainedter also entered the witnesses against his client. Willibald Berner is a liar, he can say that here in the courtroom, according to the defense attorney. Because for this accusation of a liar against Berner in an ORF interview outside the courtroom, Berner sued him and sentenced him to the Supreme Court (OGH) that he was not allowed to say this, but that he was taking action at the level European.
Berner had testified that now-defendant lobbyist Peter Hochegger had outlined to him in 2000 that he wanted to make money from privatizing the black and blue federal government, which the prosecutor took over and called the “crime plan.” This was all a Berner lie, Ainedter said.
The second witness to the trial, Michael Ramprecht, was also harshly criticized by Ainedter. He couldn’t be believed, said the lawyer. Ramprecht testified against Grasser and “spread his lies here” and “just wanted to make himself big.” “It was the disappointed affection and admiration for Grasser that turned to hatred.”
Even Hochegger’s confession at the beginning of the trial is incredible, Ainedter said. Hochegger had testified that a Liechtenstein bank adviser had told him that the money from the Buwog commission in Liechtenstein would be divided into three accounts belonging to Walter Meischberger, Ernst Karl Plech and Grasser.
In total, the questioning of 150 witnesses, with the exception of the two above, did not provide any evidence against Grasser. There is no evidence for the prosecution’s bribery charge, Ainedter said. The Public Ministry had “trampled” the requirement of objectivity of the criminal procedure code from the beginning, because the prosecutors also had to take into account the positive. “The process far superseded any punishment and gave Karl-Heinz Grasser the best years of his life,” Ainedter said.
Grasser’s attorney, Norbert Wess, emphasized that there can be no crime without an act. The prosecution could not prove an act of Grasser. Wess rejected the republic’s claims for damages of 9.6 million euros (plus four percent interest) from Grasser. He also criticized, like Ainedter before him, witnesses Michael Ramprecht and Willibald Berner.
Wess contradicted prosecution statements that Grasser had passed CA Immo’s offer of federal apartments (Buwog et al.) Through co-defendants Walter Meischberger and Peter Hochegger to competitor Immofinanz. Rather, at least 100 people would have known the amount of 960 million euros. As a reminder: Grasser’s friends at the time, Meischberger and Hochegger, received a commission of 9.6 million euros for the tip. According to the indictment, part of it went to Grasser and co-defendant Ernst Karl Plech, which they deny.
In his closing argument, Wess also referred to the fact that Grasser’s wife, Fiona, refused to testify in the corruption proceedings. He had forbidden Fiona to go to court and testify “because she would not have been accused of making false statements,” the lawyer told the two prosecutors. On Tuesday, prosecutors had “suggested” repeated false statements by Fiona Grasser, “because prosecutors said she had surrendered on someone else’s account.” We said that it would not be helpful for you to be here for general quiet in the courtroom. Answer questions “.
You can understand that Grasser’s mother-in-law, Marina Giori-Lhota, did not come as a witness and refused to testify, Wess said. “This is a very old lady who is very rich” and who has never sought out the public, she is clearly uncomfortable with the whole situation. She has certainly taken this view, “because she was afraid of being attracted to her,” Wess said. Grasser’s mother-in-law had told authorities that the money in Ferint’s account (500,000 euros was paid in cash by Grasser) was not her money, which Grasser had long claimed for. She later said that she had given the money to her daughter.
The defense lawyer also dealt with the corruption charge at the Terminal Tower office building in Linz. Once again, the prosecution could not prove a bribe from Grasser, he said. The fact that the prosecutors said that Grasser did not address the concerns of the staff really hurt his client, when all the witnesses had stated that the minister was always very attentive to the employees and even went to eat at the ministry’s dining room. Due to a bribery charge of more than 200,000 euros, the prosecution had greatly affected the lives of the Linz defendants for many years and ruined their professional careers. “You cry,” Wess said.
In the corruption process at the Vienna Criminal Court, Grasser is accused of having used his position as Finance Minister to illegally collect the privatization of Buwog and the rent from the tax authorities at the Linz Terminal Tower. Grasser denies it and a verdict is expected in November or early December.
[ad_2]
