Bavaria: Dispute over secret fees in the Weidenbusch case – Bavaria


It is about a “huge sum” and massive conflicts of interest, a “new level in the CSU amigo scandal” has been reached: SPD parliamentary group leader Florian von Brunn is once again attacking his political opponents extremely violently. He demands clarification from the Prime Minister himself at the plenary session this Wednesday. “Markus Söder has to explain himself!” The occasion is the Ernst Weidenbusch case.

Years ago, the CSU member of the state parliament and Söder confidante earned almost 430,000 euros as a lawyer with two clients who had dealings with the Bayerische Landesbank (BayernLB). This has only now become known; after the government’s response to a state parliament request from the FDP. BayernLB is owned by the Free State.

Whether these high fees for the busy lawyer Weidenbusch are worth a scandal remains to be clarified. Just like the question of who exactly knew what and when. Or not. The case is complicated and leads right into several BayernLB affairs and an investigative committee of the state parliament that had dealt with the state bank and its former housing association GBW. Weidenbusch was also a member of the committee. For the time being, it is only clear that at most insiders knew about the 430,000 euros. And that now, after the mask affairs of several CSU politicians and also so shortly before the federal election, the excitement is great.

A lot comes together: BayernLB lost billions in Austria; an equally inglorious involvement of the Landesbank in Formula 1; and finally the sale of GBW and its 33,000 apartments to private individuals by the state bank. The privatization of GBW frightened many tenants who feared sharp price increases or even that they would be forced out of their apartments. Before the state elections in 2018, the opposition wanted to find out with the committee of inquiry whether the new Prime Minister Markus Söder, as finance minister, had carelessly sold GBW and thus tens of thousands of apartments – at the expense of the tenants.

One of the leading people in the U-Committee was Söder-Intimus Weidenbusch, who had long since become a specialist and emergency helper in matters relating to the Landesbank. Weidenbusch strongly defended Söder in the state parliament. Weidenbusch said that “Markus” had fought for the GBW and wanted to prevent the housing association from “being sold to private parties”. However, that failed because of the European Union. After the multi-billion dollar rescue of the Landesbank by the Free State, the EU demanded that the state bank downsize and sell its housing company in addition to other holdings. Söder could not have done anything, was Weidenbusch’s conclusion.

Weidenbusch says the budget committee in the state parliament was informed about its business

Now the SPD suspects that the CSU MP Weidenbusch should not have belonged to the committee of inquiry into GBW and Landesbank at all. After all, the lawyer Weidenbusch had collected 430,000 euros from the Landesbank and was thus biased. “Whose bread I eat, the song I sing,” accuses Brunn Weidenbusch. He vehemently contradicts. He received the fee of 178,500 euros from the Landesbank only after the GBW committee. And with the other fee of 251,000 euros that flowed earlier, the Landesbank was not the client. But the state government. At their request, he took care of the state bank’s problems with Formula 1 and managed to get six violently divided parties to agree on a settlement.

The settlement brought the Landesbank $ 29 million; and Weidenbusch, according to him, received the said 251,000 euros from all parties to the dispute in the context of the agreement. So that was not a fee from the Landesbank. Weidenbusch also says that the budget committee in the state parliament was informed about it. A former opposition MP can remember this, including the magnitude of the sum. From parliamentary circles it is even said that Weidenbusch said in the Budget Committee, “I will only do this if you agree”. And also with the fact that he, Weidenbusch, received a fee. That’s how it turned out.

The budget committee was “involved”, says a spokesman for the state chancellery on request. And on the subject of the GBW committee: “There was and is no evidence of bias.”

The opposition would also have known about the special assignment of the MP and lawyer Weidenbusch in the Landesbank. This was just not made public because it was said to have been discussed in a secret meeting of the budget committee. CSU parliamentary group leader Thomas Kreuzer said on request that he had “no knowledge of what was going on”. A group leader did not know what might have been discussed in secret budget committee meetings. “This is in the nature of secret meetings, which stands in the way of further clarification by the group.”

Matthias Fischbach (FDP), about whose request the first fee was made public, demands like the SPD: “Söder must now explain himself without hesitation and clear the table.” The fact that the CSU in the Council of Elders immediately rejected the declaration by the Prime Minister called for by Brunn “shows how uncomfortable the whole thing is for the CSU and Free Voters”. The Green Deputy parliamentary group leader Florian Siekmann, who had also requested orders for members of the parliament on behalf of the committee of inquiry into the mask affairs, says to Weidenbusch: “It must now be clarified exactly which services were provided for the fees paid and whether these payments can withstand an arm’s length comparison “. Because of “amalgamations” as in the case, the U-Committee wanted “clarity” for all business over the past ten years.

.



Source link