Gustl
Mollath was put in a psychiatric unit for claiming his wife was involved in
money-laundering at the Bavarian bank. But seven years on evidence has emerged
that could set him free
guardian.co.uk,
Kate Connolly in Berlin, Wednesday 28 November 2012
 |
| Horst Seehofer, the prime minister of Bavaria, has called for Gustl Mollath's case to be reopened. Photograph: Pawel Kopczynski/Reuters |
A German
man committed to a high-security psychiatric hospital after being accused of
fabricating a story of money-laundering activities at a major bank is to have
his case reviewed after evidence has emerged proving the validity of his
claims.
In a plot
worthy of a crime blockbuster, Gustl Mollath, 56, was submitted to the secure
unit of a psychiatric hospital seven years ago after court experts diagnosed
him with paranoid personality disorder following his claims that staff at the
Hypo Vereinsbank (HVB) – including his wife, then an assets consultant at HVB –
had been illegally smuggling large sums of money into Switzerland.
Mollath was
tried in 2006 after his ex-wife accused him of causing her physical harm. He
denied the charges, claiming she was trying to sully his name in the light of
the evidence he allegedly had against her. He was admitted to the clinic, where
he has remained against his will ever since.
But recent
evidence brought to the attention of state prosecutors shows that
money-laundering activities were indeed practiced over several years by members
of staff at the Munich-based bank, the sixth-largest private financial
institute in Germany, as detailed in an internal audit report carried out by
the bank in 2003. The report, which has now been posted online, detailed
illegal activities including money-laundering and aiding tax evasion. A number
of employees, including Mollath's wife, were subsequently sacked following the
bank's investigation.
The
"Mollath affair", as it has been dubbed by the German media, has
taken on such political dimensions that it now threatens to bring down the
government of Bavaria. Under the weight of public and political pressure Horst
Seehofer, the prime minister of the rich southern state and a member of the
Christian Social Union (CSU) – the sister party to Angela Merkel's Christian
Democrats – has now called for the case to be reopened, amid charges that
Mollath was possibly the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice.
"The
judiciary would be well-advised to reassess the case," Seehofer said this
week. "I want them to concentrate on the question of whether everything
has been done correctly."
His justice
minister, Beate Merk, who has refused repeated calls to resign, said she had no
doubt the case had been carried out "by the book and quite
correctly".
Mollath has
been inundated with public support in the form of thousands of letters and
internet posts, many comparing his fight to that of David versus Goliath. He
said he was delighted that what he called the "murky business of the
bank" is now emerging, 10 years after he first made his claims.
"This
is precisely what I wanted to achieve all along," he told the Süddeutsche
Zeitung, which brought the audit report to light earlier this month. In an
interview in his sparsely furnished room in Bayreuth's hospital for psychiatry,
he pointed out the irony that he had suffered the fate he had repeatedly warned
his wife she would face, telling her: 'Please be careful. One day you will end
up in handcuffs and then you'll be banged up for a few years'", he said.
Asked
whether it felt any responsibility towards Mollath, a spokeswoman for HVB told
the Guardian: "We don't recognise any connection between the results of
our audit report and either the criminal trial or the commitment of Mr
Mollath."
Asked why
the bank kept the report to itself and did not approach the authorities, the
spokeswoman added: "In 2003 HVB initiated extensive investigations via
internal audits in response to information provided by Mr Mollath on
transactions that had taken place a long time before … It was determined that
employees had acted contrary to their instructions regarding Swiss banking
transactions".
But while
the findings, it said, had resulted in sackings, the audit "did not
produce sufficient evidence indicating criminal conduct … that would have made
a criminal charge seem appropriate".
Related Article:
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.