Dusseldorf Actually, they wanted to shed light on the Wirecard scandal, now the signs are turning. The members of the former investigative committee of the German Bundestag into Wirecard are suspected of having committed a betrayal of secrets. German politicians are usually protected from investigations. Now that’s changing.
“In order to enable criminal investigations to be carried out in the area of the German Bundestag, the President of the Bundestag has given her legally required authorization to prosecute”, a spokesman for the Bundestag confirmed to the Handelsblatt. This is “common in such cases in many years of parliamentary practice”. The President of the Bundestag Bärbel Bas (SPD) made the decision even before the public prosecutor’s office formally asked her to do so.
The public prosecutor has not yet decided whether they want to pursue the matter at all. The thing is: The publication of a relentless analysis by the auditing company EY in the Wirecard case.
The author was Martin Wambach, the director of the Institute of Auditors. In March, the Wirecard investigation committee commissioned him to investigate the work of the auditing company EY. EY had audited Wirecard’s balance sheets for almost ten years. In June 2020, Wirecard collapsed with billion-sized holes in these balance sheets.
Top jobs of the day
Find the best jobs now and
be notified by email.
In April 2021, Wambach presented his report to the committee of inquiry. As early as 2015, the auditors found “significant deficits in the accounting” of Wirecard, which were to be assessed as so-called “fraud indicators” and “could have been recognized as such by an auditor”. The findings would not have led to any consequences.
More about the Wirecard scandal:
According to the Wambach report, the EY auditors missed numerous warning signals. If they discovered abnormalities, they often did not investigate them. The special auditors noted again and again: “No discussion and plausibility check of these anomalies was recognizable by EY.” Or: “According to the auditor’s working papers, however, these inconsistencies were not investigated.”
In one case, according to the Wambach report, the EY auditors did not even notice that in an alleged purchase agreement from Wirecard, the name of the purchased company was wrong on one page.
EY denied wrongdoing. “We would like to emphasize that the EY auditors have carried out their audit procedures to the best of their knowledge and belief,” said a spokesman. “The audit team took all the information and allegations seriously at all times and investigated them in a targeted manner.”
On the same day that Wambach submitted his report to the investigative committee, the secret protection agency of the German Bundestag classified the document as secret on the advice of EY. Reason: It concerns business secrets.
On June 24, the lawyers of the investigative committee applied to the Federal Court of Justice to lift the secrecy. On August 6, the Federal Court of Justice ruled that the document would remain secret. The reason: the committee has since disbanded, the motion is therefore inadmissible.
The President of the Bundestag Bärbel Bas (SPD) made the decision even before the public prosecutor’s office formally asked her to do so.
(Photo: imago images / Reichwein)
Parliamentarians then lodged complaints. “We need a full publication of the Wambach report,” said FDP politician Florian Toncar. “This is a key document for understanding the Wirecard case. The secrecy of important parts … goes to the substance of our educational work. “
Dispute over secrecy
EY advocated adherence to confidentiality, including to protect personal rights and trade secrets. Politicians countered that the Wirecard insolvency administrator Michael Jaffé exempted the auditing company from its duty of confidentiality. The reason for the secrecy was omitted.
The rise and fall of Wirecard
The Handelsblatt followed this assessment and posted the complete, 168-page Wambach report including attachments on its website on November 11th. In addition, this newspaper described the special auditor’s main criticisms of the work of EY in a cover story.
Shortly after the Handelsblatt article appeared, EY filed a criminal complaint with the Munich public prosecutor. A spokesman for the auditing company stated that the complaint was directed against the “disclosure of the investigators’ report (Wambach report) and its publication”.
Investor advocates and members of the committee of inquiry criticized this step. “Wrong world. Only those who classified the Wambach report as secret should be punished, ”wrote Marc Tüngler, managing director of the German Association for the Protection of Securities, on Twitter.
The SPD politician Cansel Kiziltepe criticized: “Maximum fogging instead of maximum transparency. EY has proven this credo time and time again. “
The law firm Freshfields works for EY
According to Handelsblatt information, the EY criminal complaint was drawn up by the Freshfields law firm and sent to the Munich public prosecutor’s office. Lisa Paus, the financial policy spokeswoman for the Greens, called this “absurd”. After all, Freshfields itself needs legal assistance precisely because of its “inglorious role” in the Cum-Ex tax affair. Several of the firm’s former lawyers, including the former global tax chief, have been charged with aiding and abetting tax evasion.
Freshfields is known, among other things, for high hourly rates. Paus tweeted that EY would end up paying “several million euros to lawyers so that damaged Wirecard investors would not get any money”. Left-wing politician Fabio De Masi commented: “The PR department of EY is cracking it again!”
It is unclear whether EY will prevail with its idea that the Munich public prosecutor should lead the investigation into the Wambach report. By law, every public prosecutor’s office is responsible for prosecuting all criminal offenses that have been committed in the district of the court for which the public prosecutor’s office is appointed.
If the investigators suspect that Martin Wambach or someone from his team passed the special report on, the Cologne public prosecutor would be responsible. This is where Wambach’s law firm is based.
The members of the former investigation committee of the German Bundestag into Wirecard are suspected of having committed a betrayal of secrets.
(Photo: dpa)
If the MPs in Berlin were suspected, the public prosecutor’s office there would have to take action. She would have a lot to do.
The investigative committee on Wirecard from October 2020 to June 2021 included ten people: Kay Gottschalk from the AfD, Hans Michelbach (CSU), the CDU politicians Fritz Güntzler and Matthias Hauer, Cansel Kiziltepe and Jens Zimmermann from the SPD, Florian Toncar (FDP ) and Fabio De Masi from Die Linke. Danyal Bayaz and his successor Lisa Paus from Alliance 90 / The Greens are also affected. The same applies to the ten deputy committee members and all employees – an average of seven per member.
Investigators in the capital have so far not been interested in the case. A spokesman for the Berlin public prosecutor told the Handelsblatt that he was not aware of any charges.
Regardless of responsibility, the procedure is clearly regulated by law. The public prosecutor’s office must – as far as nothing prevents the establishment of the truth – inform the members of the Bundestag concerned that there are investigations against them. After a period of 48 hours, the public prosecutor’s office can begin its work. However, they must apply for individual permits to search politicians.
More: “Billions in assets simply invented”: How the Wirecard insolvency administrator counters Markus Braun’s thesis