Theo Zwanziger, 79, has the last words that day, and they are very unusual. Because the former president of the German Football Association (DFB) and the last remaining accused in the large summer fairy tale process would like to express his thanks to the Frankfurt district court: for the approach, for the thorough work-and for the content of the interim report.
In a 32 DIN A4 pages long lecture, which lasts one and a half hours, the chamber around the presiding judge Eva-Marie Distler made a so-called “preliminary appreciation” on the tax process for the million-dollar slide before the 2006 World Cup. Formally, it suggests that the proceedings against twenties to pay a narrow money requirement of 5000 euros. In terms of content, the comments are equivalent to an acquittal for twenties. In turn, some explanations are not likely to fall-and otherwise it is remarkable how the court evaluates the various facts of this complex affair almost ten years after the outbreak of the World Cup scandal as well as a more than one-year main hearing with 24 session days and many testimony.
It starts with its starting point: the infamous ten million francs, which in 2002 flowed from the then German World Cup boss Franz Beckenbauer to the Qatarian scandal official Mohammed bin Hammam-and received a loan for the Beckenbauer from the French entrepreneur Robert Louis-Dreyfus. The indictment saw this a “private deal” Beckenbauer, the court sees it differently. It assesses the payment as a process in the sense of the DFB. In his opinion, the ten million francs were “bribes” to get an organizational subsidy of CHF 250 million from the FIFA World Federation Association; I am Hammam, as deputy head of the FIFA Finance Commission, was responsible for the release of this grant.
Distler uses the word “bribe” more than half a dozen times. However, why the Germans and Franz Beckenbauer were compelled to pay for this bribe could not be clarified in view of a “consortium of partly silent, sometimes deceased, partly not reminiscent witness”. In addition, bribes were common at FIFA at the time, and that central witnesses could not remember is also “not surprising” because they “lived and benefited from it”. Although the specific purpose is not significant for the legal assessment, two possible backgrounds are very clear whether the evidence survey is very clear: the use of the money for the re-election of the FIFA boss Sepp Blatter and the purchase of votes for the surcharge for the 2006 World Cup.
The court’s admissions for the second relevant payment of the million carousel are also clear: the repayment of the loan to Robert Louis-Dreyfus at the end of April 2005. At that time, 6.7 million euros (the original loan sum plus interest) flowed to the World Association FIFA, declared a contribution to a later canceled World Cup gala. On the same day, FIFA transferred this sum to Louis-Dreyfus. The court comes to a clear conclusion that the money of the DFB was not intended for the gala, but had served the repayment right from the start.
As the decisive figures of this operation, the court very clearly names the Secretary General Horst R. Schmidt (DFB) and Urs Linsi (FIFA), who would have discarded the repayment and concrete implementation. Both were also accused of this process – the procedure against Linsi was hired a few years ago against payment of a money requirement of 150,000 euros, which was separated against Horst R. Schmidt for health reasons and should eventually end against payment of a presumably five -digit sum. The twenties that remained in this procedure as a defendant had “not actively participated in the veil” after the previous evidence – one was sometimes able to get the impression that “the wrong thing was on the dock”, said Distler.
The public prosecutor is surprised by some statements by the court
The third major topic of the cause remains the question of the accounting and tax law evaluation, and it not only becomes complicated, but also particularly interesting for the DFB. Because the formal core is the question of whether the DFB has rightly or wrongly asserted the 6.7 million euros in the 2006 tax return. According to the court, the millions can generally be seen as deductible business expenses – even if the original purpose was a pattern payment. However, in the opinion of the court, the question is open whether the payment was correctly booked. The court suggests obtaining an expert on this question – which would delay the process over a few months.
The chamber proposed on Monday that the fine procedure docked at the twenties procedure against the DFB. The association would then no longer have to fear any additional fine. However, this has no automatic consequences for the process, which is crucial for the association: the discretion for the year 2006. This cost the DFB more than 20 million euros, and the association wants to get the money back. However, it would be a matter of deciding on this at an early end of the proceedings before the Frankfurt district court of the Kassel Finance Court.
How things will continue before the Frankfurt Regional Court will decide on April 3. An attitude to paragraph 153a is only possible if everyone involved agreed, including the public prosecutor. So far, twenties, who has always asserted his innocence, has always stated in the procedure that he does not want to buy himself free. After the proposal and lecture by the court, his lawyer said that the evaluation and a difference to other amounts here in the room were already seen. Twenties now want to advise himself with his family. The public prosecutor said that some legal assessments of the court were surprisingly. There should be detailed statements on April 3-and could end the WM-2006 process.
#Theo #Zwanziger #World #Cup #process #wrong #dock
