The former FPÖ leader and vice-chancellor is accused of trying to get hold of a life insurance policy taken out by the Vienna FPÖ worth around 900,000 euros. He pleads for acquittal.
Former Vice Chancellor Heinz-Christian Strache in the regional criminal court in Vienna. APA / Georg Hochmuth
Add the Press on Google as your preferred news source.
The infidelity trial against the ex-Vice Chancellor and FPÖ party leader Heinz-Christian Strache continued on Tuesday. The hearing at the Regional Court for Criminal Matters in Vienna revolves around the so-called life insurance case. Against the background noise of construction work in the regional court, more witnesses were questioned on Tuesday. The last witness of the day is the former FPÖ politician Johann Gudenus expected.
After the lunch break, the gaps in memory of the ex-FPÖ politician and lawyer Peter Fichtenbauer caused obvious irritation for the presiding judge. The document is said to have been drawn up and signed in his office, with which Strache was registered as the beneficiary in the event of survival of the life insurance. Fichtenbauer initially did not want to be able to remember the document as a witness. “There are some things you don’t forget in life,” the judge countered. In view of “your infinitely esteemed person, I will strain my memory,” Fichtenbauer gave in.
He made his office space and the typist available for the agreement. But he doesn’t know who wrote the text: “If you put me on the hot stove, I can’t tell you any better.” Later, the former ombudsman became more willing to provide information, but seemed surprised by some of the chairman’s remonstrances and at times made a somewhat unsettled impression. He repeatedly emphasized that he couldn’t remember.
“I’m a very, very nice and friendly person. But it wouldn’t be too late for a dismissal,” the chairman interrupted him after a while. After five minutes of consultation with his lawyer, Fichtenbauer accepted the presiding judge’s suggestion and refrained from testifying. The background to his right to dismiss is that as a witness Fichtenbauer would be obliged to tell the truth, but the law grants him that he does not have to incriminate himself if he answers the questions asked of him truthfully.
The focus of the morning’s interviews was the question of the extent to which there were internal party decisions regarding the conclusion of life insurance and the registration of Strache as a beneficiary in the event of survival. FPÖ Federal Councilor Andreas Guggenberger could not remember such decisions. He only found out “in passing” that the party had taken out life insurance for Strache and his predecessor as Viennese party chairman, Hilmar Kabas. Guggenberger was managing director of the Vienna FPÖ for many years. He only found out that Strache was registered as the beneficiary in the surviving case when he was questioned by the police. However, he could not “definitely rule out” the fact that there were resolutions to this effect, he said in response to a question from Strache’s lawyer.
Also the ex-politician and OeNBDirector Eduard Schock, who held several positions in the Vienna FPÖ for many years, stated as a witness that he did not know much about the life insurance companies mentioned. Strache’s predecessor as Vienna party chairman, Hilmar Kabas, informed him about the existence of the insurance around 2010. He doesn’t know any details about the policy, nor can he remember any discussions or decisions in the party committees in which he sat regarding the insurance or its changes. But he couldn’t rule this out completely either, he answered a question from Strache’s lawyer.
Shortly before noon, a police officer who was involved in the investigation was interviewed. This involved the statements of a witness who had already been questioned at an earlier meeting. He explained discrepancies with his statements when he was questioned by the police by saying that he was confused due to private problems. According to the police officer, the man made no such impression when he was questioned.
According to the indictment, Strache is said to have tried to obtain the insurance sum from the life insurance policy initiated by the Vienna FPÖ. The Vienna FP took out life and death insurance for its then chairman in 2007 for a period of ten years, after it had already been in place for Kabas since 2001. 940,000 euros were paid into the insurance. In the event of his death, Strache’s mother and children would have received the insurance sum. Should the event of survival occur, on paper the party was entitled to receive benefits.
According to the indictment, Strache is said to have changed the latter on April 16, 2014 and appointed himself as the beneficiary in the event of survival. The then finance officer of the Vienna FPÖ is said to have helped him. The man sits with him in the dock.
For the public prosecutor’s office, this is a “self-dealing” after Strache acted both as a representative of the Vienna FPÖ as the old beneficiary in the event of survival and as the new beneficiary when changing the contract. The presumption of innocence applies to all defendants.
At the start of the trial at the end of May, Strache vehemently rejected all allegations against him and a co-defendant. According to him, the FPÖ had concluded a pension agreement for him. This is “usual practice” because top politicians are “exposed to increased risk”. Like others, he was “protected”. In the end, the insured event in the form of his resignation in the wake of the Ibiza affair, explained the ex-FPÖ boss. (APA)
