Stolen car keys VW files criminal complaint against Greenpeace

Status: 23.06.2021 3:09 p.m.

A Greenpeace campaign in which 100 stolen VW keys were brought to the Zugspitze has legal consequences: the Volkswagen Group has filed a criminal complaint against the environmental protection organization. Around a month after the Greenpeace campaign against Volkswagen in the port of Emden, the car manufacturer took action and filed a criminal complaint against Greenpeace. “We do not tolerate any violations of the law”said a VW spokeswoman in Emden. However, she emphasized that VW was still interested in a dialogue with the environmental protection organization. The criminal complaint suggests a change of heart among the Wolfsburgers: Initially, they reacted surprisingly moderately to the Greenpeace campaign at the end of May and initially waived a criminal complaint.

First of all, understanding and loose tweets

In order to protest against what they considered to be the slow change to electromobility at VW, the activists climbed over a fence onto a loading area in the port of Emden and removed the ignition keys from unlocked cars that were ready for shipping overseas. Shortly afterwards, the organization brought the keys to a glacier on the Zugspitze in Bavaria. There she was supposed to pick up VW boss Herbert Diess after her introduction.

Instead of directly filing a criminal complaint, Diess replied loosely on Twitter: “Gladly Zugspitze, but today I can’t manage anymore – I don’t want to use the plane. Coming soon in good weather?” And VW brand boss Ralf Brandstätter expressed understanding in a detailed comment on the action on his LinkedIn profile that “change is not going fast enough for many”.

Investigations are already running ex officio

Theft as part of the climate debate culture? The public prosecutor and the police had already seen it a little differently before the change of heart at VW: They are already investigating ex officio against around a dozen activists on charges of trespassing and particularly serious theft. In order to initiate criminal prosecution, today’s criminal complaint from VW would no longer have been necessary.

Investigations also after Greenpeace action at the EM

Last week, a Greenpeace campaign directed against VW failed at the German national soccer team’s first EM game. Shortly before the game against France kicked off, a paramotor plane staggered over the Munich arena and finally landed on the field. He came dangerously close to the audience, two men had to be hospitalized because of their injuries.

Numerous politicians condemned the action in the strongest possible terms. The police are investigating various offenses under the Criminal Code and the Aviation Act

Hearing before the BGH Are CumEx transactions a criminal offense?

Status: 15.06.2021 4:41 p.m.

The first proceedings on CumEx transactions have begun at the Federal Court of Justice. The judges must decide whether the deals are a criminal offense as tax evasion. The verdict will have far-reaching consequences. From Klaus Hempel, ARD legal editors They led to one of the biggest tax scandals in German history, in which the German tax authorities were duped and the state suffered billions in damage: the CumEx business. Investors used loopholes in legal regulations to make big money. They were supported by banks and top lawyers who work in large commercial law firms.

The state escapes taxes running into billions

Essentially, these CumEx deals were about stock dividends. These are profits from stock corporations that are distributed to shareholders. Taxes are deducted directly from this and transferred to the tax office. The shareholders can get the money back under certain conditions. In the CumEx business, investors have used an extremely sophisticated system and have taxes reimbursed that were never paid. At some point the dizziness was exposed. In March 2020, the first defendants were convicted by the Bonn District Court: two British stock traders involved in such transactions. Because they cooperated closely with the prosecutor, they were sentenced to relatively mild suspended sentences. Nevertheless, they appealed to the Federal Court of Justice. He must now clarify in a landmark judgment whether the CumEx business is actually a criminal tax evasion. “In the present proceedings, the Federal Court of Justice is dealing for the first time with so-called CumEx transactions from the point of view of tax evasion,” explains Chief Public Prosecutor Thomas Heise from the Federal Prosecutor’s Office. “He will decide whether the peculiarities of these transactions allow a tax that has not actually been paid to be reclaimed from the tax authorities.”

June 15, 2021

Warburg-Bank rejects responsibility

One of the two stock traders had earned 14 million euros from the deals, which he is supposed to repay. The private bank MM Warburg was also involved in the business. According to the judgment of the Bonn Regional Court, 176 million euros are to be collected from her. The bank is defending itself against this at the BGH. Your lawyer Ali Norouzi believes that the law does not justify skimming off the funds. “There were no representatives of the bank in the dock, but traders from other companies who traded for their own account and not for the bank,” argues Norouzi. “They made substantial profits and damaged the bank considerably. Their actions cannot be attributed to the bank.”

06/01/2021

Judgment expected at the end of July with far-reaching consequences

Nevertheless, the public prosecutor said that the millions in profits would have to be collected. The Bonn Regional Court followed this legal opinion. The Federal Court of Justice now has the final say. He plans to announce his verdict at the end of July. His decision is very significant for the lower level of justice. Hundreds of suspects are being investigated for tax evasion nationwide. If the BGH evaluates the CumEx transactions as criminal tax evasion, there will probably be further convictions in which those primarily responsible must expect long prison sentences. File number: 1 StR 519/20

Ecocide is a crime The lack of punishment for these subjects indicates a major defect in the international legal system. Ecocide is defined as “the destruction of ecosystems, humanity and life”. This includes direct damage to land, sea, flora and fauna in affected ecosystems, as well as impacts to the climate. The negative effects of Ecocide are noted on many levels because the damage is not just the environment – it can be cultural, psychological as well as emotional. Communities are also affected, especially when their lifestyles are deeply linked with compromised ecosystems. The term “ecocide” was first recognized in 1970 at the Conference on War and National Responsibility in Washington, DC and since then, many scholars and legal experts. has campaigned to criminalize it. Promoting the recognition of ecocide as a crime on an international level is the first step towards establishing a legal obligation – not just morality – to all life forms on Earth. Writer and activist George Monbiot commented: “It will change everything. It can make the difference between a habitable planet and an uninhabitable one.” Around the world, frontline communities are fighting to protect their land, air, water, forests and means of livelihood. Resources are threatened by activities such as mining and deforestation, all of which have serious social and environmental impacts. There is also an occupation of land that is destroying the entire area. Usually all of this happens while the world is looking in the other direction. Campaigners are calling for the act of destroying nature as an international criminal offense. Ecocide is an idea that environmental activists consider both very extreme but also plausible. This theory holds that no one can be neglected or punished after destroying the natural environment. Many advocates of the criminalization of environmental destruction that will help emphasize the environmental and human costs of such problems as climate change. Responsibilities of the ICC Activists believe that this type of crime should be included in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) – the agency currently prosecutes only four types of crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. Although the ICC can also prosecute environmental crimes, it has so far only been possible within the framework of the four crimes mentioned above – there is no legal restriction on losses occurring in time. jar. Although each country has its own laws and regulations to avoid loss, criminalization activists of environmental destruction believe that widespread environmental destruction will continue as long as the law is full. bridge is established. This is not going to be too light or deterrent because of international practice – like the Paris Agreement on climate change, where countries set their own goals to cut emissions. With the inclusion of a fifth offense – the crime of environmental destruction – in the Rome Convention, the perpetrator can be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned. But it also helps to create cultural change in the way the world perceives actions that harm nature. “If something becomes a crime, we put it under the red line of morality. Now, you can still come,” said Jojo Mehta, co-founder of the Stop Ecocide campaign. government agencies and apply for a license to exploit shale oil using hydraulic technology to cut or mine, or drill for oil, while you cannot apply for a murder permit, because it is a crime. Once you put that standard into practice, you change the cultural mentality as well as the reality of law enforcement. Jojo Mehta argued that having an anti-environmental law would hold those who cause serious environmental harm to the environment. Activists believe that environmental destruction should only be considered for the most damaging activities on a large scale – such as causing oil spills, seabed extraction, animal ranching. industrial tissue and oil sand extraction. In 2010, female lawyer Polly Higgins defined environmental destruction as “causing serious harm … to the point that the peace of the creatures in the area has been or will be severely destroyed”. In 2019, Higgins died at the age of 50 after being diagnosed with cancer. It was the shock to the anti-environmentalism movement – she was a legal leader and avid campaigner, sold her house and quit her high-paying job and devoted her life to the campaign. this. Mehta’s advocacy group – Stop Ecocide – is in the process of bringing together a panel of international lawyers to write a “clear and legally strong” definition for crimes of destroying the environment to Countries can apply to the ICC. Once an official definition is in place, the next step is to have a country support it in The Hague court. For campaigners like Mehta, the criminalization of environmental destruction is a way to end the destruction of Earth’s ecosystems and destroy the organisms that live there.

Drunk Finally make some irritating behavior May cause irreversible consequences Newlyweds molested by coworkers after drinking Husband verbally stopped but was abused and gangly beaten Chen and his newlywed wife Sun work as workers at a construction site in Sanya, Hainan. One day, the two were working overtime on the construction site. Suddenly, woodworkers Zhou, Rong, Rong Lie, and Ji at the same construction site got into trouble after drinking, molested Sun and beat Chen insults. Under strong resistance Caused one death and three injuries During the rebellion, Chen used the folding knife he carried with him and waved it at Zhou, Rong, Ji and others. In the chaos, Chen stabbed Rong’s left groin, causing the latter’s left femoral artery and vein to rupture, causing hemorrhagic shock and death, and also causing minor injuries to Zhou and minor injuries to Ji and Liu. After the incident, Chen was detained under criminal law. After investigating the case and collecting evidence, the public security organ arrested Chen. Subsequently, the procuratorial organ prosecuted Chen for the crime of intentional injury.

After the court heard

Chen was defended in a state of being besieged, and Chen was alone in the defense. He faced three workers holding equipment. The equipment held by several workers was enough to seriously threaten Chen’s life. , The public prosecutor’s accusation that the defendant Chen was guilty of intentional injury was not found The defendant Chen was pronounced not guilty and he was not liable for civil compensation.

After the judgment of the first instance

Two-level prosecutors’ office disagrees

Then filed a protest

The reasons are as follows

From the perspective of the relationship and cause of the two parties, Ji and Chen are both workers on the same construction site, and there is no deep hatred at ordinary times. It was only because of molesting the newlyweds on the day of the crime that the two sides were fighting.

Judging from the position and intensity of the blow chosen by Ji and others, and Zhou threw away the shovel out of fear of accident, and sparred with bare hands. Ji and others did not intentionally cause Chen to be seriously injured or killed subjectively.

Second instance verdict

In this case, the victim Rong and others made trouble after drinking, molested the wife of the defendant Chen in the original trial, insulted Chen, refused to listen to dissuasion, and beat Chen with a weapon that could seriously endanger the personal safety of others.

As a man, a husband, when his wife was molested, he was insulted and beaten by himself, he stabbed and marked Rong and others who were beating him with a knife. Meet the conditions of special defense.

Although Rong was killed, Zhou was slightly injured, and Ji was slightly injured, he was not criminally liable in accordance with the law. The protest opinion of the protest organ was not established, the protest was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

According to Article 20 of my country’s Criminal Law: “In order to protect the country, public interest, personal, property, and other rights of others from ongoing illegal infringements, actions taken to stop illegal infringements will cause harm to the illegal infringers. It is a legitimate defense and does not bear criminal responsibility.”

Then

What conditions should legitimate defense meet?

1. Unlawful infringement exists objectively, that is, the cause of legitimate defense must be the objective existence of unlawful infringement from others, but it is not a necessary condition that the illegal infringement constitutes a crime.

2. The illegal infringement is ongoing, that is, the legitimate defense must target the illegal infringement that has begun but not yet ended. If “defense” against an “infringement” that has not occurred or an infringement that has ended, it is not a legitimate defense.

3. Have defensive awareness, that is, the perpetrator’s defensive behavior must be based on the motivation to protect legitimate rights and interests.

4. Against the unlawful infringement, that is, the object of legitimate defense must be the unlawful infringement, not the third party.

5. It does not significantly exceed the necessary limit, but there is no necessary limit to take defensive behaviors against ongoing assaults, homicides, robberies, rapes, kidnappings, and other violent crimes that seriously endanger personal safety.

   ▲Source: Law Popularization in China