Buwog verdict

Grasser guilty verdict: confirmation recommended

Karl-Heinz Grasser wanted a "fair" verdict.

(Bild: APA/HANS PUNZ)

The advisor to the Supreme Court recommended on Monday that the embezzlement convictions against Karl-Heinz Grasser and his co-defendants be confirmed. Grasser's verdict would therefore only have to be overturned on one point ...

On December 4, 2020, former Finance Minister Grasser (FPÖ/ÖVP) was sentenced to eight years in prison for, among other things, embezzlement. Grasser said after the verdict in the Vienna Regional Criminal Court: "You see me sad and shocked. This verdict goes beyond anything I could have imagined."

Judge Marion Hohenecker, in turn, said in her reasons for the verdict at the time: "Anyone who does business honestly does not need accounts in Liechtenstein." Numerous co-defendants also received multi-year prison sentences. Grasser, like many others convicted in the first instance, hopes that the non-final judgment from 2020 will be overturned. Now it is the Supreme Court's turn (OGH).

The Supreme Court is advised by the General Procurator's Office - which has now issued its 160-page opinion, which the Supreme Court generally uses as a guide. For Grasser, there would be a single annulment, namely the guilty verdict on the point of participation in the falsification of evidence. However, the highest public prosecutor's office in the Republic, which acts as the guardian of the law, recommends that the Supreme Court confirms the core of the first-instance guilty verdicts.

What is the Buwog trial about?
The trial before Judge Hohenecker concerned commissions of EUR 9.6 million on the sale of the federal housing companies (Buwog and others) and EUR 200,000 on the lease of the Linz financial offices in the Terminal Tower in Linz. These funds are said to have ended up with Grasser, among others, which he vehemently denies. The panel of lay judges took a different view.

Grasser had abused his political function, violated financial interests and failed to fulfill his obligations, explained Judge Hohenecker at the time in her ruling. "It is a case of a hidden commission agreement by Grasser, who was in power, at the expense of the Republic of Austria, which was harmed as a result," said the judge.

In addition to Grasser, former FPÖ politician Walter Meischberger, ex-lobbyist Peter Hochegger and ex-Immofinanz boss Karl Petrikovics were also sentenced to seven, six and two years respectively. The General Procurator's Office had to examine the appeals for annulment lodged by these four prominent men and four other defendants - including a lawyer, a Swiss asset manager, ex-Telekom board member Rudolf Fischer and ex-RLB-OÖ board member Georg Starzer - against their respective convictions.

Judgments mostly sound
In its Croquis, the authority comes to the conclusion that the embezzlement verdicts on the Buwog complex are, with one exception, sound. The General Procurator's Office considers the appeal for annulment by former RLB-OÖ board member Starzer, who was sentenced to three years' imprisonment at first instance, to be entirely justified. In his case, the full annulment of the verdict and a new trial for breach of trust and bribery in the Buwog proceedings is recommended.

What is a croquis?

• The opinions of the Procurator General's Office are called "croquis" in technical jargon.
• They are a kind of decision recommendation for the Supreme Court.
• These opinions are very time-consuming, as the lawyers responsible have to work through all the relevant procedural documents.

In this particular case, the file to be examined by the Procurator General's Office comprised 58 boxes. The Buwog complex alone comprised 5200 files, as the authority announced in a media release. The written judgment of the court of first instance was 1280 pages long, the appeals against it a total of 1141 pages.

What happens next?
Should the Supreme Court follow the General Procurator's Office in dealing with the nullity appeals, the findings of the court of first instance on the central allegations would become final. However, a judgment would have to be set aside with regard to the flawed findings relating to side issues of the proceedings and a new hearing would have to be scheduled at the Vienna Regional Court on these points.

As a result, the original sentences would also be obsolete and the sentences would have to be redetermined at the end of a new trial. This means that Grasser, Meischberger & Co could at least hope to have their sentences reduced.