What now follows the Grasser conviction

Ex-Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser faces a long prison sentence. He was sentenced to eight years in prison on Friday by a jury at the Vienna Criminal Court. Ex-FPÖ politician Walter Meischberger was imprisoned for seven years, ex-lobbyist Peter Hochegger six years in prison. The judgments are not final.

The almost three-year Buwog trial came to an end with the decision of the first instance. But the criminal case will keep the Austrian judiciary busy for a long time. The defense lawyers have already announced an appeal against the judgment. Grasser spoke of a “wrong judgment”.

What was Grasser sentenced for?

The jury sentenced Grasser for breach of trust, acceptance of gifts by officials and forgery of evidence. The judges saw the accusations in the Buwog indictment as proven: Grasser had collected bribes during the Buwog privatization in 2004 and the renting of the finance in the Linz Terminal Tower in 2006. There were “hidden commission agreements” – with the Buwog privatization amounting to around 9.6 million euros and with the Terminal Tower amounting to 200,000 euros. According to the jury, these agreements constituted breach of trust to the disadvantage of the Republic of Austria.

There is no doubt that Grasser, as finance minister, passed on secret information from the Buwog bidding process via his accomplices Meischberger and Hochegger to the Austrian consortium, according to the presiding judge Marion Hohenecker. As a result, the consortium knew how much it had to bid in order to win the bid, and bribes were paid in return, according to the ruling.

“Only Grasser comes into question as an informant,” said Hohenecker. She spoke of “overwhelming evidence” and referred to testimony and various documents. It has been proven that the money in an account in Liechtenstein that Meischberger describes as his own belongs to Grasser. The jury did not believe the defendants’ statements on the flow of money. Hohenecker said it was absurd that Grasser’s mother-in-law gave him around 500,000 euros to test his talent for investments.

The threat of punishment at Grasser is one to ten years imprisonment. It would also have been possible to increase the sentence to fifteen years, since Grasser is said to have committed the crime “taking advantage of an official position”. The jury did not apply this tightening of penalties. The judge said that the long duration of the proceedings had been included in the judgment. A violation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) alleged by the defendants does not represent the long duration: “There were no longer periods of official inactivity.”

What about the other defendants?

Meischberger was convicted of contributing to Grasser’s crimes, for bribery and forgery of evidence. According to the verdict, he acted as Grasser’s middleman. Hochegger was convicted of contributing to the Buwog and Telekom complexes and acquitted of the allegations regarding the Terminal Tower. Hochegger had made a partial confession at the beginning of the trial. It was not rated as mitigating: the confession came too late, it was not remorseful and it did not help to establish the truth, so Hohencker.

Ex-Telekom board member Rudolf Fischer was sentenced to one year imprisonment, eight months conditional, in the Causa Telekom. It revolves around the allegation of illegal party funding through telecom money. Ex-Immofinanz boss Karl Petrikovics received a two-year prison sentence, ex-RLB-Upper Austria board member Georg Starzer three years, lawyer Gerald Toifl two years and the Swiss asset manager Norbert Wicki 20 months.

Five defendants in the Terminal Tower complex were acquitted. There was an acquittal for the former Immofinanz board member Christian Thornton. Meischberger was also acquitted of fraud charges relating to his villa in Döbling.

How did Grasser & Co. react to the judgment?

Grasser describes the decision as a “wrong judgment” and a “political judgment”: “I know that I am innocent.” In the morning he expected an acquittal. He was now “sad, shocked and scared,” said Grasser. There is “no evidence of wrongdoing on my part,” said Grasser. “This judgment has nothing to do with fairness and justice.” He is confident that it will not stand up to the supreme court, according to Grasser.

According to Grasser’s lawyer Manfred Ainedter, the jury’s senate “did not withstand the enormous pressure to condemn the media prejudice, which was unique in the Second Republic, due to thousands of negative media reports”. Grasser was “wrongly convicted”. Hochegger was relaxed after the verdict: “I take the events of life as they are.” Meischberger stormed out of the hall after the penalty was announced. Jörg Zarbl, Meischberger’s lawyer, said: “It’s an incredible misjudgment.” The economic and corruption prosecutor is still checking whether she will appeal. You could appeal against the judgment and criticize, for example, that the Senate did not apply the higher sentence of fifteen years to Grasser.

What happens now?

The criminal case will occupy the judiciary for a long time to come. First of all, the jury’s senate has to draft and execute the judgment. The defense lawyers can then appeal against it.

In a nullity complaint to the Supreme Court (OGH), for example, a complaint can be made that formal errors occurred during the hearing or that evidence was insufficiently assessed in the judgment. Furthermore, a lower or higher penalty can be requested in an appeal. The Supreme Court can revoke the conviction in whole or in part. In this case, he can decide the matter himself or refer it back to the first instance for a new decision. The process must then be carried out again to the extent of the cancellation. Something like that happened in the Bawag trial.

The Supreme Court can also confirm the judgment, whereby the guilty verdict becomes final. In the event of a guilty verdict, the amount of the penalty could then be reduced or increased, the Vienna Higher Regional Court decides.

Ainedter also wants to turn on the Constitutional Court. This should deal with the suspicion of bias Hohenecker. The defense considers the judge to be biased because her husband published prejudicial articles about Grasser on the Internet in the run-up to the trial.

To what extent can the ECHR still play a role?

It is also possible to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). It decides whether the ECHR has been violated in a procedure. Zarbl said he wanted to go to the ECHR for Meischberger. However, if the ECHR finds a violation of the Human Rights Convention, the process is not automatically repeated. In such a case, it would be the turn of the Supreme Court: It could renew the criminal proceedings and have them carried out again. A complaint to the ECHR also has no suspensive effect.

What other consequences can the judgment have?

Private parties have joined the trial and are demanding compensation from Grasser and other defendants. The Schöffensenat awarded the Republic of Austria the replacement of around 9.8 million euros. If the judgment becomes final, the federal government can demand compensation from Grasser, Hochegger and Meischberger. According to media reports, Hochegger is in private bankruptcy.

CA Immo, which was subject to the Buwog privatization, was referred to civil law action by the judgment. It has already brought an action for damages against the Republic of Austria and the State of Carinthia and is claiming damage of two billion euros. CA Immo sees its demands confirmed by Grasser’s conviction.