In the last instance, the Federal Court of Justice is now also certain: the city plan heir Alexander Falk commissioned criminals to shoot at a business lawyer who was preparing a multi-million dollar damage claim against him.
So far, the case has been best told in the subjunctive simply because it seemed so unbelievable. A once extremely rich man and at times celebrated star entrepreneur had ordered an attack on a lawyer, who got him into serious trouble with a civil lawsuit worth millions for sales manipulation when selling a company. That was the accusation. It’s been official since this Wednesday, you can do without the possibility: Alexander Falk, who had come into a lot of money as a “city plan heir”, is behind the shot with which an unknown perpetrator shot Frankfurt lawyer Wolfgang J. seriously injured. Two years ago, the Frankfurt Regional Court sentenced Falk to four and a half years in prison for inciting dangerous bodily harm. Falk’s lawyers appealed, the Federal Court of Justice has now rejected them. “This appeal is unsuccessful,” said Senate Chairman Ulrich Franke. With which the judgment is final.
In the years before the crime, Falk had had his back against the wall, so to speak. It was about the sale of his company Ision to a British company in 2000. Ision narrowly avoided bankruptcy soon after. The buyers accused Falk of manipulating sales, the public prosecutor accused him, and in 2008 he was sentenced to four years in prison for attempted fraud. And that was not the end of the matter: The large law firm Clifford Chance, for which the lawyer worked, prepared a claim for damages, which should also involve 30 million from Falk’s private assets. Falk felt pursued “as if by hunting dogs,” it said at the verdict in Frankfurt. That’s when the fateful plan came to fruition.
Important indication in an SMS
During his incarceration, Falk met a criminal who, along with his brother, is said to have been a key figure in the plot. The details remained in the dark, but the order to attack is said to have passed through them. An important piece of evidence was a text message that one of the men had sent to Falk. Everything will now be prepared so that “grandma” can begin her well-deserved spa stay. For the court it was clear that only the lawyer could be meant – none of the parties involved had a living grandmother. There was also an audio file presented by a witness who accused Falk of incitement. “Shooting was just right,” Falk said in the recording, calling the victim a “bacilla”. The witness was questionable, he had been investigated for extortion. But there was no denying that Falk’s voice was on the tape.
Among other things, the BGH dealt with the question of whether the district court should have questioned the brothers at least via video link in Turkey. The regional court had rejected the corresponding motions to take evidence, and Franke indicated that this decision “was not without legal concerns”. On the other hand, the BGH did not consider the mistakes to be significant enough to overturn the verdict. The fact that there was not much to be gained from the two witnesses – that their statements would therefore be “unsuitable and worthless” – this assessment by the regional court was not objectionable.