Conviction only if intent is proven

The criminal complaint against Kurz, Bonelli and Glatz-Kremsner comprises 108 pages. The trial will be led by Michael Radasztics, who has been a judge at the Regional Criminal Court since the beginning of January. Before that, he worked for the public prosecutor’s office in Vienna for 15 years. Radasztics originally investigated ex-Finance Minister Karl-Heinz Grasser and then oversaw the Eurofighter proceedings before the file was withdrawn from him in 2019 and handed over to the WKStA. Now, as a single judge, he will assess the merits of the indictment.

The offense of “false evidence” can be difficult to prove in practice. An objectively false statement can often be determined quickly – but a “conditional intent” must be proven for a conviction, says criminal law expert Klaus Schwaighofer (University of Innsbruck).

The decisive factor for acquittal or guilty verdict is how Kurz interpreted an involvement in Thomas Schmid’s appointment at ÖBAG. “The fact that he was informed is on the table and can be objectified through chats,” emphasizes Schwaighofer. Kurz did not formally participate in the decision due to a lack of responsibility. “If you believe him that he referred to the formal involvement when making the statement, then he did nothing wrong.”

The criminal lawyer Alois Birklbauer from the Johannes Kepler University in Linz says that the investigators do not have to prove Kurz that he deliberately lied to the committee head-on, but that he at least thought it possible or reconciled the committee wrongly inform. “As soon as I have doubts about a statement, but do not express it, it is a false statement,” said Birklbauer. A false statement is more difficult to prove if someone relies on a lack of memory. Memory errors would not result in a conviction. Ex-Finance Minister Gernot Blümel, with his countless “gaps in memory”, was “probably better advised” in the U-Committee, says Birklbauer.