Shortly before the general election, the searches in the finance and justice ministries cause explosives. After some inconsistencies were discovered in the investigation, allegations about possible political motivation are raised.
There could not have been a less favorable time for SPD Chancellor candidate Olaf Scholz. 17 days before the federal election, investigators search Scholz’s own house next to the Federal Ministry of Justice: the Ministry of Finance. The reason for this is the ongoing investigations by the Osnabrück public prosecutor’s office against employees of the anti-money laundering unit FIU.
As harmless as the actual searches were carried out, the greater the speculation about a possible background to the election campaign. As head of the ministry, Scholz is responsible for everything that goes wrong in his house and in the subordinate authorities, accuses CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet of his rival. The opposition also criticized Scholz for not having his money laundering unit under control. But the SPD sharply rejects the allegations. According to Scholz himself, no ministry employees are among the accused. Instead, parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich calls for a “rapid clarification” on a possible party-political motivation for the incident.
The most important questions and answers about the searches at a glance.
What was the purpose of the searches?
The public prosecutor’s office in Osnabrück is investigating previously unknown officials from the anti-money laundering authority “Financial Intelligence Unit” (FIU), a special money laundering unit of the customs, which belongs to the Federal Ministry of Finance. The allegation of preventing punishment is in the room, since FIU employees are said to have not forwarded information on terrorist financing to investigators in good time.
In essence, it is about how the FIU organizes its work. Banks are obliged to report suspicious transactions to the authorities. In view of the large number of incoming reports, the FIU is not in a position to check each individual report manually and therefore takes a “risk-based approach”. So far, the FIU has checked each incoming report to see whether it corresponds to one of ten main risk areas and only then carries out an in-depth analysis.
From the point of view of the Osnabrück public prosecutor’s office, this is illegal. In the course of the searches, the investigators wanted to see e-mails between the FIU and the Ministry of Finance. The public prosecutor’s office was also interested in a written exchange between the finance and justice ministries on the work of the FIU.
How did the search warrant come about?
On request, a spokesman for the Osnabrück public prosecutor’s office explains this stern: On July 30th, the Federal Ministry of Justice was asked for the necessary information by telephone. However, the ministry would have refused to hand them over with reference to “interests in secrecy” and the “great official channels”.
According to the Ministry of Justice, the “major official channel” was merely a request for a written request. “In response to an official request for information from the Osnabrück public prosecutor’s office, the BMJV would of course have provided information voluntarily, quickly and in full,” the ministry said. The authority is legally obliged to do so under Section 161 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to Paragraph 96, however, the ministry must check before any documents are released whether the disclosure of the content of the documents would “be detrimental to the welfare of the federal government or a German state”.
When asked, the public prosecutor replied that the negative attitude of the ministry gave them the impression that a written request might only have filtered the relevant documents – if at all. That justified the searches.
How did the searches go?
Both the ministries and the public prosecutor’s office report cooperative work. After a joint review of the files, the investigators were able to view the documents in question without any problems and take them with them. The public prosecutors even got permission from the Ministry of Finance to access the electronic files from outside for possible later access.
In the end, the visitors from Osnabrück would have ticked “A search did not take place” on the form for the campaign, as reported by “”.
What is it about the election campaign allegations?
Shortly before the federal elections, speculations about a possible background to the searches are loud. In particular, the fact that both the head of the Osnabrück public prosecutor’s office, Bernard Südbeck, and Lower Saxony’s Minister of Justice Barbara Havliza, are CDU members, causes discussions.
A spokesman for the public prosecutor’s office vehemently denies this speculation. First, the investigation would not be led by Südbeck. And secondly, the yardstick for the actions of the public prosecutor is not when an election is due or who has which party membership, but only the law, the criminal procedure codes and the guidelines in criminal and fine proceedings. “These provide for the investigation to be carried out promptly and that is exactly what we did,” the spokesman assures stern.
Then why did the searches come so late?
In this context, the supposedly “timely” timing of the searches raises questions. Although the judicial decision for the Ministry of Finance was already available on August 10, the investigators are only at the door a month later. The public prosecutor explains the noticeably long period of time with an accidental breakdown at the Osnabrück district court. This had overlooked the application for the search warrant at the Ministry of Justice and only handed over the decision for the Ministry of Finance. Due to the vacation, this was only noticed on August 23rd. Two days later, the district court also issued the order for the Ministry of Justice. The period up to the search therefore actually lasted only a week and a half, says a spokesman stern on demand.
Still, there are doubts about the approach. A search warrant is by definition urgent, criticized constitutional lawyer Joachim Wieland in an interview with the “”. The district court issued such a decision under the impression of a certain situation. “It could have changed four weeks later.” The public prosecutor’s office counters the criticism that it is legally permissible, however, to enforce a decision for up to six months.
Why do the search warrant and press release contradict each other?
A press release from the public prosecutor’s office provides for further inconsistencies, according to which it should be investigated “whether and, if so, to what extent the management of the ministries and superior departments were involved in the decisions of the FIU”. If the allegations contained therein are confirmed, it would actually be a scandal. The Federal Ministry of Finance has legal oversight for the FIU, but is not allowed to find out anything about the cases that have been dealt with.
But with regard to the aim of the investigation, the press release does not agree with the judge’s search warrant. Accordingly, the search relates exclusively to the identification of the unknown FIU employees involved. The spokesman for the public prosecutor’s office explains that the investigation is open-ended in all directions stern. He does not see a contradiction between the search warrant and the press release.
Criticism of the procedure comes from constitutional lawyer Wieland. If the public prosecutor wanted to investigate whether and, if so, to what extent the management and those responsible in the ministry were involved in the decision of the FIU, then “they should have applied for a search warrant from the responsible judge,” says the legal scholar of the “Tagesschau”. The actually approved search warrant was limited to the identification of the FIU employees involved and did not cover an investigation against those responsible in the Ministry of Finance.
How are the reactions in the SPD?
After the searches became known, the SPD rejected any criticism of its candidate for chancellor and demanded clarifications on possible party political motivation. “In their panic about losing power, the Union is making the most indecent election campaign in decades due to a lack of content,” said SPD General Secretary Lars Klingbeil (RND). “In order to harm Olaf Scholz personally, Laschet and his people deliberately twist the facts, twist the truth and spread targeted lies.”
Scholz’s State Secretary Wolfgang Schmidt had previously pointed this out on Twitter. Because he published excerpts of the decision, which is only allowed under certain circumstances, is now also being investigated against Schmidt.
SPD parliamentary group leader Rolf Mützenich was “irritated by the allegations, allegations and untruths from the CDU and CSU up to and including Mr. Laschet”. He also called for “quick answers and clarification” about the searches and about possible party political motivation.
Norbert Walter-Borjans, the co-chairman of the SPD, went a step further by accusing the CDU of possibly abusing the judiciary to damage Scholz’s reputation. “The serious suspicion of instrumentalizing state authorities by conservative partisans would once again add a new dimension to the election campaign,” said Walter-Borjans of the “”. “The elixir of life for the conservatives has always been the strings they use to pave the way for lobbyists to enter government circles.”
What are the other parties saying?
For CDU chancellor candidate Armin Laschet, Scholz, as head of the ministry, is responsible for everything that goes wrong in his house and in the subordinate authorities. In the second TV triall, Laschet also accused his competitor of inappropriate behavior towards the judiciary. Union parliamentary group vice-president Thorsten Frei (CDU) also accuses Scholz and his entourage of stirring up “doubts about the independence of the judiciary” in the case, as he told the RND. “That is extremely dangerous and raises doubts about the rule of law of the SPD candidate for chancellor.”
FDP General Secretary Volker Wissing emphasized that the investigations were directed neither against Scholz nor against his ministry. “It is not wise that the investigations are now being made an election issue and that one argues with half-truths,” said Wissing in the RTL / ntv “early start”.
How are things going now?
In view of the approaching federal election, the searches remain a sensitive issue for SPD chancellor candidate Scholz. Next Monday, a special meeting of the finance committee in the German Bundestag should bring clarification. Scholz wants to switch on digitally – but the opposition wants to quote him personally in the Bundestag.
Sources: “”,,, with DPA
David William is a talented author who has made a name for himself in the world of writing. He is a professional author who writes on a wide range of topics, from general interest to opinion news. David is currently working as a writer at 24 hours worlds where he brings his unique perspective and in-depth research to his articles, making them both informative and engaging.
