Interior shots of hearing room 1 | Image source: Princely Regional Court
The trial against the owner of an Oberland construction company continued today at the regional court. The defendant had to answer on suspicion of forgery of documents and a violation of the Company Personnel Pensions Act (BPVG). At the same time, the company was faced with an application for the imposition of a fine for the same BPVG violation.
Six further witnesses were heard at today’s meeting – all current or former employees of the company in question.
Forged signature on bad weather compensation application?
The focus of the accusation was the allegation that the defendant forged an employee’s signature on applications for bad weather compensation for December 2023, January 2024 and February 2024.
Some of the six witnesses who were called today said that work was taking place at the construction site on Gaflei in January 2024. The defendant vehemently denied this and stated that construction work was simply not possible given the temperatures. The heating was not in operation and the building heater was far too small. The risk of damage was too high. They drove to the construction site once or twice, but were unable to reach it with their vehicles because of the weather conditions. He also reported this to the construction manager. He had already testified accordingly on the previous day of the hearing, and some of the employees interviewed today also confirmed this statement.
In contrast, former employees testified that they heard during discussions that the defendant had admitted to forging the signature of the employee in question. In addition, detailed questions were asked about vehicle use, places of work and specific activities, primarily to check the credibility of the witnesses, according to the judge.
Photos were also presented that were apparently taken in Gaflei on January 9, 2024. However, neither people nor vehicles can be clearly identified in the images. Only one witness said he might be in one of the pictures, but expressed uncertainty.
The public prosecutor explained that the facts were clear: the signature had been forged, the BPVG violation had been committed, and the defendant had admitted this himself. Since there have already been two previous proceedings, further diversion is ruled out.
The defense attorney first requested that a graphological report be obtained. The district judge rejected this application because the number of signatures required for a settlement could not be provided. The defense attorney then pointed out the numerous contradictions in the witness statements: both the group of active and former employees gave contradictory statements. No guilty verdict can be supported on this basis. The defendant admitted the BPVG accusation from the start and made a remorseful confession; the outstanding amounts have been repaid in full. In addition, the defendant was ill during the relevant period and thus got into financial difficulties – a motive for the alleged forgery of documents cannot therefore be identified.
Verdict: Acquittal of forgery
The district judge acquitted the defendant of the charge of forging documents. As justification, he stated that the witness statements had shown significant contradictions. It cannot be determined whether the former employees testified falsely out of personal dissatisfaction or whether the current employees testified out of excessive loyalty. The external construction manager stated that no work was carried out in January. The defendant would not benefit from a false statement and would have no relationship with the defendant.
In addition, there are contradictory statements from the employee whose signature was allegedly forged: In his first statement, he stated that the signature for December 2023 was real and only that for January 2024 was forged; Later, the period from December 2023 to March 2024 was suddenly described as fake. It was also unclear why he took the photos. Finally, the defendant also lacked a plausible motive: Even if an employee had not been present on a certain day, there would have been no rush to submit the application and there would have been no reason to forge a signature. In case of doubt, only an acquittal can be issued.
BPVG violation: suspended sentence for defendant and company
He was found guilty of violating Article 25 Paragraph 1 Letter b BPVG. According to the court, he deducted employees’ pension contributions from their wages from April 2023 to December 2024 but did not pass them on to the pension fund. The penalty is 120 daily rates of 90 francs each, a total of 10,800 francs, with a probationary period of three years. The company concerned received an association fine of 10 daily rates of 500 francs each, a total of 5,000 francs, also conditional.
The judge justified the level of punishment with general preventive considerations: This offense requires a clear reaction, especially since the defendant has already come into conflict with the BPVG several times – even if he has never been convicted. The maximum probationary period of three years is justified by this history. However, since the defendant confessed and paid the outstanding amounts in full, the sentence could be suspended.
Neither the prosecution nor the defense made any appeal statements. The judgment is therefore not yet legally binding. The presumption of innocence applies.
