The 35 best family series to laugh and feel good (tv-media.at) E-Scooter in Vienna: All providers and prices 2020 in comparison (autorevue.at) Comments Login Connect with Facebook “The first day in the corruption process against ex-finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser and 14 other defendants were marked by an all-round blow from the defenders.

3rd day of negotiation:

Plea by Grasser lawyer Wess

4th day of negotiation:

Hochegger puts massive strain on Grasser

5th day of negotiation:

Grasser comments on Hochegger’s partial confession

6th day of negotiation:

Hochegger: “Was part of this system”

7th day of negotiation:

Hochegger “dummy invoices” “Mailbox Companies”

8th day of negotiation:

“We would not have made it without Karl-Heinz”

9th day of negotiation:

“Peter, we win this”

10th day of negotiation:

The Masonic Trail

11th day of negotiation:

Petrikovics exonerates Grasser

Read news for 1 month now for free! * * The test ends automatically.

Comments

Connect with Facebook

”

The first day in the corruption process against ex-finance minister

Karl-Heinz Grasser

and 14 other defendants suffered a sweeping blow from the defense attorneys.

“The main hearing begins,” said Hohenecker. The prosecutors Gerald Denk and Alexander Marchart represent the prosecution and corruption prosecutor’s charges. Because of the expected length of the trial, there are more substitute lay judges than usual. If one or more lay judges are absent, the process can still be continued. Christian Pilnacek, head of the criminal law section, expects the process to take around one year.

Blast effect in the Grasser process

There was a bang on the very first day of the trial. The investigative journalist and author Ashwien Sankholkar has been excluded from participating in the main hearing as a journalist and listener. The lawyer of the ex-finance minister Karl-Heinz Grassers, Manfred Ainedter, had made the application.

Ainedter justified his request by saying that Sankholkar would appear on the list of witnesses requested by the prosecution in the indictment. After a brief consultation, the jury decided to expel the journalist. “This is an attack on the freedom of the press,” said Sankholkar as he left the courtroom.

For years, Sankholkar had presented new investigative findings in numerous articles, which had led to fierce criticism from Ainedter and even to lawsuits against the magazine “Format”, where the reports were published.https://123helpme.me/ Sankholkar had devoted a detailed chapter in his book “The Plundered State” to Grasser and the suspicion of corruption in the Buwog privatization.

The Schöffensenat rejected Ainedter’s application to exclude the investigating officers of the Federal Criminal Police Office from the main hearing. Judge Hohenecker carried out the decision that the application was imprecise and it was also still unclear whether and who would be called as a witness by the officials.

Defenders want to change the seating arrangement

In the Grasser trial, there were no shortage of objections from the defense on the first day of the trial: In the afternoon, all of the defendants – with the exception of lobbyist Peter Hochegger – complained that the seating arrangement in the large jury court room of the Vienna criminal regional court did not meet the legal requirements and that a change had to be made .

The senate of lay judges then decided to reject the application. There is no legal right to a specific seat. The seating arrangement does not violate the rights of the accused under the European Convention on Human Rights.

The motivation was justified by the fact that the defendants and defense counsel were visually not on an equal footing with the lay judges and judges, that there was only a limited view of the screens and the facial expressions and gestures of the witnesses and defendants and, above all, the journalists, the four rows behind Defense attorneys sitting at the screens and documents of this could look.

Usually the defense lawyers would sit where the lay judges have now taken their places, it was urged. “We are sitting here in the deepest seat of the courtroom,” complained one defense attorney. The audience banks rise slightly towards the back.

In view of the advanced time, judge Marion Hohenecker postponed the hearing to tomorrow, Wednesday. Then the public prosecutor’s office should hold its opening speech.

The beginning of the process

Grasser came into the courtroom for the first time about ten minutes before the start of the trial, accompanied by his lawyers Manfred Ainedter and Norbert Wess. The main defendant, Finance Minister in two governments of Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel (ÖVP) from 2000 to 2007, is now on trial for the first time on suspicion of corruption. He is said to have enriched himself with the help of his fellow accused – Walter Meischberger, Ernst Karl Plech and Peter Hochegger. The charge is that when the federal apartments (Buwog) were privatized, the EUR 9.61 million commission paid to Hochegger and Meischberger was actually a bribe. Furthermore, Grasser and his confidants are said to have received a bribe of 200,000 euros for renting the finance in the Terminal Tower office building in Linz. All deny the allegations.

Plech and Hochegger greeted each other with a handshake in court. As seen from the audience, Grasser took a seat on the far left, with his best man Walter Meischberger sitting next to him.

The media rush on the first day of the mega-process was rather restrained. The court regulated access with accreditations, and there is a pool solution for photos and videos. There was also no excessive rush on the grandstand – access as a listener is only possible after prior registration with a seat card. A court draftsman made sketches of the proceedings for a daily newspaper.

In front of the court entrance there was a small demonstration with posters “Catch me if you can”. When entering the jury room, there was a small glitch when the wrought iron gate could not be opened.

No employer, no house, no car

No employer, no house, no car – this is how ex-finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser presented his income and financial situation at the start of the corruption process. In response to a specific question from judge Marion Hohenecker about his assets, he gave no information. He named Kitzbühel (Tyrol) as his place of residence, and according to the judge he has no previous convictions.

The second defendant Walter Meischberger, the third defendant Ernst Karl Plech and the fourth defendant Peter Hochegger also did not provide any information about their assets.

“Unfortunately, I have no more assets due to the long duration of the proceedings and the media prejudice, that hit my fortune.”

Ex-Immofinanz boss Karl Petrikovics said when asked about a previous conviction: “A conviction that I am currently serving.” The former top manager said he earned 120 euros net a month.

The co-accused former RLB-OÖ board member Georg Starzer said of his job that he was the bank director in peace. The also accused Swiss asset manager Norbert Wicki stated that his place of residence was Baku, Azerbaijan. He was without assets: “Unfortunately, I have no more assets due to the length of the proceedings and the media prejudice, that hit my fortune.”

Negotiation “of long duration”

Before the 14 defendants had to answer questions about their financial circumstances, Hohenecker pointed out some organizational peculiarities of the proceedings. It is to be expected that the main hearing will be “of a longer duration”.

When Grasser defense attorney Manfred Ainedter wanted to speak at the beginning of the negotiation, Hohenecker immediately intervened. “Doctor, you are not at your word,” said the judge in front of a whole armada of defense lawyers.

After the personal details of the 14 defendants were recorded – the 15th defendant, ex-RLB-Upper Austria boss Ludwig Scharinger, is incapable of negotiating according to the court report – the lay judges were sworn in.

Ainedter applies for bias against the judge

The main hearing began with massive attacks by defense lawyers against judge Marion Hohenecker. As already announced, the defense attorney for ex-finance minister Karl Heinz Grasser, Manfred Ainedter, filed an application for bias against judge Marion Hohenecker because of the alleged Grasser-critical tweets of her husband at the start of the corruption proceedings.

Ainedter spoke of a “hostile attitude” from Manfred Hohenecker, who is also a criminal judge. In order to present the allegations in the courtroom, Ainedter projected a presentation onto a large screen. However, when he heard a mockery song by Christoph Lollo wanted to play, he failed because of the technology. Because the technology had not planned acoustic demonstrations, there is no technical facility for this in the jury room. Without further ado, Ainedter practiced as an interpreter and read the lyrics out loud himself.

It is not a question of whether Marion Hohenecker is actually influenced, it is enough for the appearance of impartiality. The request for bias should be decided immediately, according to Ainedter’s request, who also commented extensively on the possibility of influencing “freely chosen” spouses. Finally, he also quoted commentators such as the “Krone” columnist Michael Jeannee.

Hohenecker then asked whether there were any other bias requests – and there were. The legal representative of Meischberger also located bias and put Manfred Hohenecker in the politically “left” corner: He was an active opponent of an ÖVP-FPÖ coalition under the then Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel, said lawyer Jörg Zarbl, who is also the judge’s Twitter follower had researched and classified them largely as left based on their political orientation.

After the judge had previously reprimanded a viewer who illegally took a photo in the large jury court room, Meischberger’s lawyer claimed that her husband had taken a photo during a trial against ex-FPÖ top politician Peter Westenthaler without being reprimanded – The judge at the time was Marion Hohenecker.

Another request for bias

The defense attorney for the defendant Ernst Karl Plech has filed another bias motion against Judge Marion Hohenecker. The attorney Michael Rohrgger initially stated that there was no such thing as a kin for the spouse, and then continued: “If Dr. Hohenecker pronounces a conviction here, she is doing her husband a favor.”

“If Dr. Hohenecker pronounces a condemnation here, she is doing her husband a favor. ”

Although no one accuses her of her marriage, the defense attorney of Plech assured the judge, who listened to the lectures of the defense attorney without comment. But the close connection in a marriage and the attitude of her husband is likely to be influenced, said Rohrgger.

The defense attorney for the defendant Peter Hochegger did not submit a petition for bias. Otto Dietrich, lawyer for the co-accused and currently imprisoned ex-Immofinanz boss Karl Petrikovics, came forward, joined the bias motions and also criticized the “improper composition of the jury”.

Dietrich stated that, according to his legal opinion, the judge was not responsible and argued this with the course of the files and the connection with the ongoing infidelity proceedings “Villa Esmara” against his client. Although yesterday, Monday, the Supreme Court (OGH) declared in this regard that the jurisdiction of Judge Hohenecker for the Grasser trial would not change, Dietrich still sees an incorrect jurisdiction.

Dietrich criticized the fact that in the “Villa Esmara” trial, which Hohenecker had led in the first instance against the ex-tennis manager Ronald Leitgeb, the judge Leitgeb had condemned as a participant in the infidelity, although Petrikovics was not on trial for incapacity to stand trial. The verdict was subsequently overturned by the higher instance, and the case must be renegotiated against Leitgeb. The two judges, Marion Hohenecker and the second professional judge, Roman Palmstingl, would have accused Petrikovics – in his absence – of a knowledgeable abuse of authority in the “Villa Esmara” trial and thus prejudged them. They are a “partial court”.

Dietrich then described the internal files for responsibility. It is about a process whereby the present proceedings had to stay “on the bend and break” with the judge who was not responsible, so the defense attorney.

The defense lawyer for the six-bar complaint also joined the bias motions. A total of five defense lawyers filed bias claims against the judge. Ainedter noted that the journalist Ashwien Sankholkar, who was on the witness list, was in the room. Judge Hohenecker had this noted in the protocol. Public prosecutor Alexander Marchart stated that there was already a case law contradicting this information on all of the defense lawyers’ requests. The president of the regional court had already determined that the judge was not biased.

Bias requests against judge rejected

The jury’s senate in the Grasser trial this Tuesday afternoon rejected all requests for bias against judge Marion Hohenecker. The requests for rejection by the presiding judge are not justified, Hohenecker read out the reasons for the decision. “It is not in keeping with the spirit of the times to want to uncritically rewrite a judge’s husband’s opinion.”

As a judge you are “independent and non-partisan” and have to judge on the basis of the laws, the contents of the files and a fair, objective evidence process, according to Hohenecker.

“It is not in keeping with the spirit of the times to want to uncritically convey the opinion of a husband to a judge”

Five defense lawyers had previously filed bias claims against her on the grounds that her husband had tweets critical of Grasser on Twitter.

An application for the procurement of documents from the Personnel Senate for the distribution of business was granted. All other motions aimed at the alleged incompetence of the judge were rejected by the jury’s senate with a decision.

Read news for 1 month now for free! * * The test ends automatically.