High tension at the regional criminal court: ex-chancellor Sebastian Kurz testifies today – krone.at reports from 9 a.m. in the live ticker. On the first day of the trial, an amicable settlement had already been reached for one of the main suspects. What consequences this may have for the procedure.
Surprise on the first day of the trial of ex-chancellor Sebastian Kurz and Co. for alleged false statements. The main defendant, Bettina Glatz-Kremsner, was granted a diversion, an out-of-court settlement, by Judge Michael Radasztics. The former casino manager must pay 104,060 euros within 14 days. But what does that mean for the course of the criminal proceedings? It should be shorter. Because there are fewer witnesses.
WKStA can still object
The judge decides who he needs for further days of trial. Before this, the WKStA can object to the agreement within two weeks. “It is not yet clear whether this will happen,” says public prosecutor spokesperson Rene Ruprecht. Today it is Kurz’s turn. On Monday his former office boss Bernhard Bonelli. Both are said to have provided false evidence to the University Commission. What they deny.
Does distraction affect their strategies? “Glatz-Kremsner was about other issues – the appointment of Mr. Sidlo to the casino board,” said criminal law professor Robert Kert. So it has no immediate impact. “However, the judge shows that he is prepared to provide distraction if the suspect accepts responsibility, even though the WKStA expressly opposes this.”
“The defense wants an acquittal”
An option for Kurz and Bonelli. “In my view this is unlikely at this time as the defense strategy is clearly aimed at acquittal,” Kerr said.
Prosecutors’ Mistakes: “A Matter of Optics”
The WKStA had to admit an error in the conclusion of the claim. She stated that former finance ministers Hartwig Löger and Gernot Blümel had testified word for word. However, this is not true. The ÖVP has now asked a parliamentary question to Justice Minister Zadić (Greens) about how this could have happened. Is this harmful to prosecutors? Robert Kert: “Not for legal review. There is an error in the very detailed justification, which would not be necessary in the criminal complaint.”
It’s more a matter of optics. “Because the impression could be created that the WKStA is working sloppily.”
Source: Krone
I am Ida Scott, a journalist and content author with a passion for uncovering the truth. I have been writing professionally for Today Times Live since 2020 and specialize in political news. My career began when I was just 17; I had already developed a knack for research and an eye for detail which made me stand out from my peers.
