exclusive
The tax officer who was once responsible for the Warburg Bank is increasingly coming under pressure in the Cum-Ex affair. After WDRresearch, her own head of authorities filed a criminal complaint against her. And new details are emerging.
The cum-ex affair surrounding the Hamburg Warburg Bank could have serious consequences for the tax officer responsible at the time. According to research by WDR the head of the Hamburg tax office for large companies, Michael Abeln, has filed a criminal complaint against his own employee.
In a letter dated November 11, 2022 to the Cologne public prosecutor’s office, the head of the authority reported a possible violation of tax secrecy by his employees. The tax officer Daniela P. is said to have chatted with an acquaintance in 2016 about the delicate Warburg process.
Specifically, it is about the fateful message that Daniela P. typed on her cell phone on November 17, 2016. She had just gotten behind an explosive meeting in the Hamburg tax authority.
It was about cum-ex transactions by the private bank MM Warburg and the question of whether the financial institution would have to pay back 47 million euros in allegedly stolen tax money. The tax officials decided that day to let the bank keep the millions in taxes for the time being. Because of legal risks, it was said. It was a controversial turnaround that is currently occupying an investigative committee in the Hamburg Parliament, which is investigating the question: Have politicians and tax officials influenced the cum-ex tax procedure to the detriment of taxpayers?
“Diabolical plan” worked out
In November 2016, tax officer P. kept her acquaintance, who also worked for the tax authority but was not officially involved with the case, up to date via Whatsapp chat: “My devilish plan worked (with the kind support of SI) and to great joy from V.”
“SI” may have meant the head of the tax office for large companies, “V” could have been a reference to the head of Hamburg’s highest tax authority, who worked directly for the then Finance Senator Peter Tschentscher. In the Whatsapp chat, the acquaintance asked: “So let it expire?” Tax officer P. confirmed: “Yes, if nothing else comes.”
A “diabolical plan” that spares a bank from having to repay 47 million euros in taxpayers’ money – and possibly even to the delight of high-ranking Hamburg tax officials, who in turn reported to Finance Senator Tschentscher?
The chat confiscated by the Cologne public prosecutor’s office is currently one of the most important leads in the Hamburg Cum-Ex affair, in which investigators are investigating whether politicians and tax officials helped the private bank MM Warburg get their Cum-Ex booty to be allowed to keep. And this at a time when it was becoming increasingly clear that the private bankers, with the help of other accomplices, were recovering millions in taxes that no one had ever paid before.
Scholz’ role should be illuminated
The current Chancellor and then First Mayor of Hamburg, Olaf Scholz, is not being investigated in the case. He still has to put up with criticism because he met the Warburg owner Christian Olearius several times during the period in question, talked about the cum-ex deals and, according to his diary, advised the banker to contact Tschentscher.
According to the will of the Union, an investigative committee should soon examine Scholz’s role in detail before the German Bundestag. Tschentscher, who is in charge of the fortunes of the Hanseatic city today, also has to ask himself uncomfortable questions. Both vehemently deny political influence.
Action against own employees
For tax officer P., the open exchange with her acquaintance could be fatal. The Hamburg tax authorities did not want to comment on the specific case due to tax secrecy. In general, the following applies: “The Hamburg tax administration consistently investigates concrete suspicions of a violation of tax secrecy – including by its own employees.”
P’s chat partner left a request unanswered. She was promoted to head of a tax office while disciplinary proceedings were being carried out and criminal charges were being filed against P.
Cologne investigators come to different assessments
Ps lawyer Leon Kruse stated on request that “there are no indications that the responsible officials of the tax administration had the intention of securing the benefits of tax evasion for the Warburg Bank.” It was an extremely complex process of deliberation. The Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office has already done so.
According to the lawyer, the decision was justifiable based on the knowledge available at the time. The Hamburg Public Prosecutor’s Office did that too. The Cologne investigators currently dealing with the case obviously do not share this assessment.
Members of the Olearius family on the guest list
Daniela P. is also threatened with trouble from other quarters. It is not only determined because of the possible violation of tax secrecy. The question is also investigated as to whether the tax officer may have made herself liable to prosecution for aiding and abetting tax evasion and favoritism. The Whatsapp message with the words “diabolical plan” should be an important piece of evidence.
Two days after the general election, the NRW investigators searched the officer’s workplace and apartment. In addition to the mobile phone with the Whatsapp chats, they found information from the WDR also on the guest list of a celebration, according to which members of the Olearius family were invited in addition to the tax officer and her Whatsapp partner. An old suspicion surfaced: Years ago, auditors at the Warburg Bank had speculated in a note that the tax officer could also have a private relationship with those responsible for the money house. The officer has always denied this.
The guest list shows that P. was apparently acquainted with a Hamburg marketing expert who in turn knew the children of Warburg co-owner Olearius. The tax officer with whom P. chatted so eagerly also apparently belonged to the Hamburg marketing specialist’s circle of friends.
You know each other, you see each other – you help each other? In front of the investigative committee, P. emphasized that Ms. Olearius did not appear at the party. She later asked herself whether she was biased “because I know someone who knows Ms. Olearius”. The result of their reflection: “I’m not biased.”
Bank owner wrote notes about P.
In fact, Daniela P. also plays a role again and again in the diaries of Warburg owner Christian Olearius, which were also seized during a raid. Between 2016 and 2017 alone, the banker mentioned the officer around 40 times. At the beginning of the tax proceedings in June 2016, he noted: “Ms. P. got down on our knees and wants to agree with us. (…) If she doesn’t get any further, she wants to give us time and come to an agreement with us on the amount of the tax burden. ”
On November 17, 2016, when the tax authorities actually let go of the Warburg Bank and Daniela P. sent her “diabolical plan” WhatsApp, Olearius wrote in his diary on the same day: “Ms. P. recommends staying calm. You have to sign the minutes of the decision. Also, 2009 was statute-barred at the end of the year and the risk was halved.”
Two weeks later, when the decision had been made, Olearius noted with satisfaction that his lawyer had now informed him, “Ms. P. called, everyone responsible signed their report. She warns of the public prosecutor’s office and Deloitte. They are not favorable to us.”
According to his records, the official is said to have even actively come to the banker’s aid in the spring. The auditors, who were supposed to certify the annual accounts of Warburg-Bank at the time, reported concerns about the cum-ex transactions. Apparently, they demanded that the bank make provisions or that co-owners Olearius and Max Warburg join the debt.
Apparently, the bankers persuaded Daniela P. to call one of the auditors, who was ready to issue a full certificate shortly afterwards. However, she is said to have done so only “unwillingly”. “I can understand her,” Olearius confided in his diary. “It is she who shows courage.”
Regarding the diary entries, Olearius’ spokesman stated that Olearius had never spoken to or met Ms. P. There was no personal connection between the Olearius family and Ms. P. Daniela P., when asked about her role in the dispute between the auditor and the final examiner in front of the current committee of inquiry, confirmed that her involvement in the matter was by no means usual. “But,” said the officer, “what is normal in the process?”