The trial of the former head of Constantia Privatbank, Karl Petrikovics, and Immoeast manager Christian Thornton for serious breach of trust ended on Friday with acquittals for both. According to the indictment, Immofinanz and Immoeast had indirectly provided millions in loans to subsidiaries of Constantia Privatbank in 2007, which used them to buy shares in the two companies. The judgment is not final.
The jury came to the conclusion that the allegations made by the Public Prosecution Service could not be proven with the necessary certainty, the chairman of the court announced in the afternoon. In particular, there was no intention to cause damage. The public prosecutor initially made no comment, which means that the verdict is not legally binding for the time being.
Facts undisputed
According to the indictment, in 2007 Immofinanz and Immoeast indirectly provided multi-million dollar loans to subsidiaries of Constantia Privatbank, which in turn used them to buy shares of Immofinanz and Immoeast. This fact was beyond dispute in the proceedings and was confirmed by Petrikovics from the outset. But the prosecutor assumed that the companies that received the loans did not have significant assets. According to the accusation, these were unsecured loans and neither the supervisory board nor the other board members were informed.
Petrikovics countered that, on the one hand, the companies had assets and could still have repaid the loans even if the shares had been devalued by 20 percent. Petrikovics also assumed that Constantia Privatbank was liable for its daughters. The origins of the procedure go back 17 years. It is not surprising that most witnesses in the trial had only vague memories of this. The judge also noted that this circumstance had complicated the proceedings. The main hearing alone lasted almost a year, with twenty days of negotiations.
Petrovic’s defense cannot be refuted
The Senate now concluded that it was ‘understandable’ that Petrikovic’s approach was that the cash advances would be repaid with interest. From the Senate’s perspective, it can be assumed that Petrikovics had no doubt that the share price would rise and that he would make a profit. There was also sufficient liquidity in Immoeast and Immofinanz so that there were no signs of distress selling. “In case of doubt, possible infidelity on the part of Petrikovics could not be established with the necessary certainty; Petrikovics’ defense could not be refuted on most points.
With Thornton, on the other hand, it became clear that he was not involved in strategic decisions and assumed that Petrikovics’ actions were legal. Overall, it cannot be proven that either of the two defendants seriously considered it possible that damage would be caused to the two real estate companies.
Thousands of small investors were harmed by the real estate financing scandal. However, the present lawsuit was not about the injured shareholders, but about the damage that Immofinanz and Immoeast allegedly caused, according to the Public Prosecution Service.
Source: Krone
I’m Ben Stock, a journalist and author at Today Times Live. I specialize in economic news and have been working in the news industry for over five years. My experience spans from local journalism to international business reporting. In my career I’ve had the opportunity to interview some of the world’s leading economists and financial experts, giving me an insight into global trends that is unique among journalists.
