It is true that the paragraph, which has been controversial since its existence, is not only attractive to the defendants, who at least avoid a criminal record.

The group set up an installation reminiscent of the Berlin Holocaust memorial. The “Center for Political Beauty” protested against Björn Höcke’s speech with a memorial. (Photo: imago / snapshot) The action referred to Höcke’s speech , in which the Thuringian AfD boss called the Holocaust memorial in Berlin a “monument to shame” and spoke of a “stupid coping policy” in this context. The “Center for Political Beauty” protests against the investigation. “The state is unpacking one of the sharpest legal weapons – which is directed against serious criminals – against the center and the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of art,” says the website. “We should be illuminated, criminalized and stigmatized.” Source:, lge / AFP “News and information at a glance. Collection of articles by on the subject of Mannesmann The second Mannesmann trial is heading towards an attitude Head of Deutsche Bank, Ackermann, and the other five defendants in the Mannesmann trial are expected to end the proceedings with the payment of a total of 5.8 million euros. For 25 years, Helga Anne Schoeller was responsible for the salaries of the Mannesmann executive board .

Memories of a stunned accountant. In the Mannesmann trial of the disputed million dollar severance payments to former executives, another defendant has rejected the allegation of infidelity. In the Mannesmann trial, Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann protested his innocence on the second day of the negotiations and defended the million payments to former managers of the Düsseldorf group. Ex-Mannesmann boss Klaus Esser went one step further, he demanded his acquittal.

Ex-Mannesmann boss Esser failed with a corporate strategy and earned millions for it. Why are compensation payments in such high amounts overlooked while employees fear for their livelihood? When the media rushed, the new version of the Mannesmann trial began on Thursday before the Düsseldorf regional court. In the spectacular commercial criminal case, the judiciary is negotiating for the third time on the charge of serious breach of trust in the course of the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodafone six years ago. The proceedings against Deutsche Bank boss Ackermann and five other defendants for the million-dollar bonuses in the Mannesmann takeover are entering the third round, followed by a chronicle of the Mannesmann takeover and the legal aftermath.

No matter what judgment the Düsseldorf Regional Court comes to in the new version of the Mannesmann trial: The process, which has been going on for years, has had a serious impact on the culture in German biology essay writing service The banking and finance expert Hans-Peter Burghof considers a conviction of the defendants at the new version of the Mannesmann trial to be quite likely. But he doubts whether a conviction makes sense. According to people who are familiar with the situation, Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann is aiming for a setting against a fine in the Mannesmann case. The top banker wanted to avoid a threatened conviction.

Ackermann would be hard to hold as chairman of the board of directors with a guilty verdict. “After a month and only six days of negotiations, judge Stefan Drees can end the most spectacular German economic criminal case on Wednesday. The 45-year-old Rhinelander has to deal with the application with his criminal chamber The defense attorney for Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann decided to discontinue the Mannesmann case. Drees is said to have been informed of the secret negotiations between the defense and the public prosecutor’s office. This is another reason why he was able to take his time deciding on the flood of evidence that Daniel Krause, the defense attorney for ex-Mannesmann boss Klaus Esser, brought into the proceedings. If Drees ends the proceedings almost seven years after the takeover of Mannesmann by Vodafone, these applications will be wasted anyway. How the court would ultimately have decided the case will be Hardly give it away – if it already has an opinion had formed.

For Drees, the new version of the Mannesmann process was by far the most sensational process of its career to date. The chairman of the tenth large commercial criminal chamber took the place of Brigitte Koppenhöfer in Hall L 111 of the Düsseldorf Regional Court. He had to work through 8,000 pages of files to get an idea of ​​what was going on in what was then the most expensive at around 180 billion euros Make Acquisition of the World.

Drees has not yet revealed how he sees the matter. His questions, however, were always aimed precisely in the direction that the Federal Court of Justice had specified: Could the defendants assume they were acting lawfully, or should they have refrained from the controversial bonus and pension commitments in view of concerns and warnings? If Drees did, as expected Draws the line, these legally interesting questions will ultimately remain unanswered – in contrast to the acquittals of his predecessor Koppenhöfer, his decision will stand. Source: “Defendants, including Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann, end the most spectacular economic process in Germany with The District Court of Düsseldorf is following the application of the defense and the prosecution with the decision, the presiding judge Stefan Drees said in Düsseldorf on Wednesday.

The defendants had not bought themselves out, he emphasized. Thousands of proceedings would be terminated in Germany every year similar to the Mannesmann proceedings against monetary requirements. Ackermann’s defense attorney Klaus Volk also emphasized that it was not a second-class acquittal for the Deutsche Bank boss. Ackermann is taking on the lion’s share of the payments with 3.2 million euros that are to flow into the state coffers and charities .

Ex-Mannesmann boss Klaus Esser pays 1.5 million euros. If a guilty verdict had been found, Ackermann would not have been able to remain at the helm of Deutsche Bank. His lawyer Eberhard Kempf said the banker, who left the building without commenting immediately after the announcement, was relieved. “The trial is over,” he whispered after the judge’s verdict.

In the first Mannesmann trial, with his hand spread to the victory sign – allegedly a funny gesture – caused a storm of indignation. The institute’s supervisory board also welcomed the end of the process. Ackermann can now concentrate fully on his work, he explained. According to Judge Drees, the proceedings were broken off because there was no public interest in further prosecution and there was no seriousness of guilt on the part of the defendants preventing an attitude: “That is the case.” In addition, the accused were burdened “above average” by the years of proceedings. The public prosecutor had already determined when Ackermann took office at the helm of Deutsche Bank four years ago, and the court approved the indictment in autumn 2003.

Ackermann, Esser, the former IG Metall chairman Klaus Zwickel and three other defendants had to answer for the second time since the end of October on suspicion of infidelity or aiding and abetting. In essence, it was about the almost 60 million bonuses and severance payments that had flowed to current and former managers in early 2000 when Mannesmann was taken over by the British mobile phone giant Vodafone. With a volume of 180 billion euros, the transaction is still the largest in economic history. The Federal Court of Justice overturned acquittals from a first trial in Düsseldorf in 2004 last winter. Ackermann’s defenders criticized this again sharply: “The BGH lives in a parallel world,” said Volk.

Ackermann had not enriched himself, but he nodded the payment as a member of the supervisory board. Ackermann’s co-defendant Jürgen Ladberg also expressed relief: “I did not buy myself out here, but I would have preferred an acquittal.” But he also understands the people who find it difficult to understand the attitude. Esser, who had fought for an acquittal for years, did not want to comment. The outcome is not a surprise The outcome of the trial was expected. A Solomonic solution, the business-friendly press was happy beforehand – modern indulgence, criticized criticism. Because according to the wording of the law, an attitude should only be possible if the “public interest in criminal prosecution” can be eliminated with the additional payment. One can hardly imagine a case in the past few years in which the public was more eager to see what they see as greedy managers punished.

The unprecedented sum of 30 million euros that ex-Mannesmann boss Klaus Esser had received from his contract plus bonuses had become a symbol of excess, just as Ackermann’s Victory sign an expression of arrogance. Ackermann must be credited with that he has not enriched himself with the award of the bonus. From the public’s point of view, however, what is said in a well-known procedural law commentary on the suspension of the party donation proceedings against former Chancellor Helmut Kohl at the time: That the public interest in clean conditions in political life would have made the process necessary. Furthermore, the judiciary seemed to have been after the spectacular annulment of the acquittals by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) not very far from a judgment. The fact that the subsequent bonus blessing after the Mannesmann takeover by Vodafone in this specific case clearly constitutes breach of trust was thus clarified by the highest court – at the same time the BGH left enough leeway so that companies can also subsequently reward deserving managers. From the point of view of the highest judges, it seemed rather unlikely that the accused could be excused because they might have been mistaken about the legal situation. Curiously, the attitude is based on a regulation that was originally intended not for the big fish, but for the small fish . Section 153 a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, created in the mid-1970s, was intended to relieve the judiciary of mass petty offenses. In 1993, a wording was deleted according to which only “minor guilt” could be discontinued – and the standard previously intended for shoplifters and machine crackers made a career: tennis star Steffi Graf paid a handsome sum in 1997 and got rid of a lawsuit for tax evasion; The following year, the ex-Opel manager and later VW board member Jos Ignacio Lopez transferred 400,000 marks (today almost 205,000 euros) to a curative education institution and was no longer accused of industrial espionage; In 2001, Kohl escaped the infidelity lawsuit against payment of 300,000 marks (a good 153,000 euros).

And the list could go on and on with sports stars and lottery bosses, business bosses and cultural managers. Can anyone who has money buy their way out with this? It is true that the paragraph, which has been controversial since its existence, is not only attractive to the defendants, who at least avoid a criminal record. It is precisely the complex economic processes that can paralyze a chamber for months that put a considerable strain on the courts. An adequate punishment could often not be given simply because “because there are insufficient judicial resources available for the necessary clarification of such complex issues”, criticized the former BGH Senate chairman and today’s Attorney General Monika Harms in a judgment.

For the judiciary, an attitude is a double gain: it gets rid of the mammoth lawsuit and with it even flushes money into the treasury. Source: “The termination of the Mannesmann trial against monetary requirements has brought several plaintiffs onto the scene. A spokesman for the prosecution said that a Hamburg law firm had filed criminal charges against the judges, the prosecutors and the six former accused, including Deutsche Bank boss Josef Ackermann, at the Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office in connection with the end of the trial In addition, four private individuals had also filed a complaint. The public prosecutor in Düsseldorf, whose representatives had also agreed to the termination, forwarded the complaints to the Public Prosecutor’s Office in order to avoid the appearance of a Bias au to let go.

The public prosecutor’s office is now supposed to check whether there is any initial suspicion. The process of the controversial premium payments that were made when Mannesmann was taken over by Vodafone in 2000 was against the payment of a total of 5.8 million euros by the at the end of November six defendants have been hired. Source: “Do trees have to be felled for a memorial? Definitely not, say some residents of Amsterdam. The monument is to be built from 102,000 bricks.

The name of a victim should be on each stone. (Photo: picture alliance / dpa) Source: “The Düsseldorf judiciary has received 15 criminal charges and three administrative complaints against the termination of the Mannesmann trial Two weeks decided, said a spokesman for the Düsseldorf Public Prosecutor’s Office on Monday on request. The complainants accuse the judges of the regional court involved in the decision and the prosecutors of perversion of justice and thwarting the criminal offense. The trial against Deutsche Bank boss and Mannesmann supervisory board Josef Ackermann and five other defendants were hired at the end of November for a total of 5.8 million euros, 40 percent of which will go to charitable organizations.

Previously, the defendants had to answer on suspicion of serious breach of trust or aiding and abetting, because they had been involved in the distribution of 57 million euros in bonuses and pensions when Mannesmann was taken over by Vodafone. More than 4,000 non-profit organizations have contributed to the multi-million dollar contributions and supplicants advertised. The court will decide at the end of January which organizations will receive the 2.3 million euros, said a court spokesman on Monday. The rush for the money had temporarily endangered the operation of the court.