In 20 days, 731,000 emails were sent to the Cum-Ex Committee. Now the Red-Green Party in Hamburg wants to prevent MPs from seeing the evidence. The CDU threatens to sue. The SPD committee head faces new questions.
The investigative committee into Olaf Scholz’s cum-ex affair in Hamburg continues the dispute over two laptops from North Rhine-Westphalia. The committee’s chief investigator, appointed by the SPD, took possession of the devices containing sensitive emails from cum-ex investigations without consulting the opposition. A statement by the committee chairman on the incident now raises new questions about the influence of the SPD in the committee.
The chairman of the committee, the Hamburger SPDCitizenship MP Mathias Petersen admitted that he had instructed the SPD-appointed head of the working staff to remove the two devices from the file room that was actually intended for sensitive documents. The party friend then stored the laptops in a cupboard in his office for almost three weeks, he explained. Representatives of the opposition were only informed about this by the two SPD men when star and “WAZ” made the incident public three weeks ago.
On the Laptops There are more than 731,000 emails, including from the electronic mailboxes of Hamburg’s mayor Peter Tschentscher (SPD), numerous high-ranking Hamburg officials and Olaf Scholz’s long-time office manager. The Cologne public prosecutor’s office confiscated the mailboxes as part of the investigation against a Hamburg tax officer and two former high-ranking SPD politicians from the city.
At the beginning of October, the data from North Rhine-Westphalia was delivered to Hamburg for the local parliament Committee of Inquiry can evaluate them. But a little later, opposition MPs were surprised: the laptops were no longer in the safe that was actually intended for highly sensitive data. Since then, the mood in the committee has escalated.
CDU chairman threatens to sue
This Friday, the committee wants to debate “handling laptops and evidence” in a special meeting. The red-green majority wants to prevent committee members from seeing the emails. Instead, the SPD chief reconnaissance officer should Steffen Jänicke Appoint a few employees from his team who are supposed to filter out and pre-sort those emails from the bundle of emails that the MPs can then look at.
CDU chairman Richard Seelmaecker wants to prevent this plan. “It is our constitutional responsibility to carry out the inspection ourselves,” says Seelmaecker. “If we are denied this by the red-green majority, I will sue.”
The debate about the evidence is sensitive because it highlights the role of the SPD in the committee. Although numerous active and former Hamburg SPD politicians are involved in the affair, due to the regulations for investigative committees in Hamburg, the SPD provides both the committee chairman and the head and deputy of the working staff, who take on or prepare many investigative tasks for the MPs.
In its case, the Cologne public prosecutor’s office is investigating the question of why the tax office in Hamburg initially refrained from reclaiming millions in loot from suspected cum-ex transactions from the Hamburg private bank MM Warburg in 2016 – and what influence the two politicians had in… advised the bank closely at this time.
A parliamentary investigative committee in Hamburg has been dealing with exactly this question for three years. The focus is on the role of the current Federal Chancellor and then Mayor of Hamburg, Olaf Scholz, who met with the bankers several times and spoke about the procedure shortly before the tax authorities made the controversial decision.
Committee head should also appear in the emails
What is remarkable is that committee chairman Petersen and SPD chairman Milan Pein are themselves indirectly involved in the affair. Companies close to the bank donated a total of 45,500 euros to the Hamburg SPD in the year after the decision was positive for the bank. Mathias Petersen and Milan Pein also sat on the party committee that decided whether to accept the donations.
At the time of the donations, it had long been public knowledge that the owners and managers of the Warburg Bank were being investigated for serious tax evasion. Nevertheless, the SPD committee had no reservations about accepting the money. When the story broke in 2020 and was later briefly discussed in the investigative committee, Pein and Petersen claimed that they did not know that the donor companies were part of Warburg’s corporate network.
The committee chairman Petersen is moving forward after information from star and WAZ is now at the center of the affair through another process. His name is said to appear several times in the evidence on the two laptops that his party friend Jänicke took on his instructions. At least one of the emails in which Petersen appears as the addressee and which was also forwarded to Olaf Scholz and Peter Tschentscher is about the sale of the former Landesbank. Like Warburg Bank, HSH Nordbank was also deeply involved in cum-ex transactions. The scandal bank has left the city of Hamburg with a billion dollar deficit.
The appearance of Petersen and other SPD politicians in the seized emails is piquant for several reasons. In November last year, despite resistance from the SPD, the investigative committee’s educational mandate was expanded to include the topic of HSH Nordbank.
The fact that the SPD politicians in the committee appear in the emails in question could become an additional problem for the party. “Nobody is allowed to be a judge in their own case,” says CDU chairman Seelmaecker. “If the committee chairman or other SPD members of the committee themselves are involved in the Cum-Ex scandals or if the contents of the laptops even raise concerns about bias, those affected must immediately stop their work on the investigative committee.”
And suddenly the laptops were gone
How star and WAZ reported three weeks ago, the laptops with the explosive data were allowed to be viewed by MPs in mid-October – after the opposition had fought for it for a year. On Friday, October 13th, the employees of various MPs looked at the emails for the first time.
SPD chairman Milan Pein then complained to his party colleague and committee chairman Petersen that there were emails in the mailboxes that were unrelated to the investigation. This is confidential political correspondence and personal data is affected. The inspection is unlawful, possibly even criminal.
Petersen now admits in a statement that he had instructed work staff leader Jänicke to take the laptops on the evening of October 13th. Three days later, he informed the parties’ representatives about the data protection concerns. Together with the opposition, it was decided to no longer grant employees and MPs access to the laptops. First, a report should be drawn up by Jänicke and two other members of the team on how the data can be used.
However, Petersen and Jänicke did not inform the MPs and the task force employees that they had taken the laptops. Only later did several members of the task force and deputies notice that the laptops were no longer within the security area of the task force. Even when asked, they were not informed of their whereabouts. CDU chairman Richard Seelmaecker noticed that the devices were missing and asked the task force leader about their whereabouts, but was only told that they were in a safe place. Only after publication in star and the WAZ the laptops appeared again. They were missing for a total of 20 days.
Opposition politicians were outraged about this three weeks ago star and WAZ: “The laptops were removed from the safe without consultation. We don’t know whether they have been manipulated or read in the meantime,” explained CDU chairman Richard Seelmaecker. “We are extremely astonished at this handling of sensitive data,” says Left chairman Norbert Hackbusch.
On the day of publication star and the WAZ publicly pushed back committee head Mathias Petersen: He spoke to the dpa news agency of “complete nonsense” and a “storm in a teacup”. At a meeting of the representatives it became loud; according to consistent reports from participants, SPD chairman Milan Pein shouted at the opposition members. He did not respond to a query.
SPD man takes legal action against stern
Jänicke himself is now taking legal action against the reporting. He wants that star have the court prohibit him from continuing to claim that he made the laptops disappear. The star rejects Jänicke’s claim and is legally defending itself against the requested ban. A decision from the court is still pending.
The reporting about the missing laptops caused a nationwide stir. The CSU called for a special investigator to examine the grievances in the Hamburg investigative committee. Last week, the Bundestag debated the events in a current hour.
There was also harsh criticism from the Union in the Bundestag: “It’s not the goat, but rather a lot of goats who have been turned into gardeners,” said Mechthilde Wittmann (CSU) about the fact that all key positions in the Hamburg investigative committee were held by SPD men are occupied. “Palermo is on the Alster.”
But there was also criticism from the traffic lights. Those involved “did themselves and politics a disservice” when they took the laptops on their own initiative, said Markus Herbrand (FDP). A “devastating impression” was created. There is no question that “only through an objective examination from outside can an attempt be made to regain lost trust.”
Matthias Hauer (CDU) goes one step further: “The events surrounding the disappearance of the laptops show that the SPD uses all means to hinder the investigation. We also experienced this in the Bundestag, when the establishment of an investigative committee was prevented in a previously unique process.” The Union had requested the establishment of an investigative committee in the Bundestag in April, but the SPD, together with the FDP and the Greens, prevented this. “The traffic light tramples on minority rights.” The Union doesn’t want to put up with this – and has also taken the path to Karlsruhe on this issue. The 89-page statement of claim is with the Federal Constitutional Court.