The case almost sounds like a philosophical thought experiment because of the extremes it combines. There is a lot to be said against the 36-year-old accused: in 2020 he cheated, several times. On the one hand, there is that he received unemployment benefit I, although he had a job again – but only for a month and, as he claims, by mistake, he simply got the date wrong. On the other hand, there is the forgery of documents in order to get the job mentioned. He forged – at least – three documents with which he attributed qualifications he did not have.
One of them was an excerpt from the Federal Central Register, which certified that he had a clean slate. The vest was tinted dark: in addition to a particularly serious case of theft, the accused has 25 previous convictions for fraud and was therefore serving a prison sentence until spring 2020. “Hardly released, but then you keep going and, with all due respect, that looks like shit,” as the prosecutor put it. In addition, the accused is currently serving two suspended sentences, which is already rare. A third would be “very unusual,” as the defendant’s public defender, Uwe Paschertz, admitted. The other two documents have something to do with the profession that the defendant claims to have: a certificate that identified him as a paramedic, despite a lack of training, and another that certified him to have advanced cardiac life support training. He created them with a computer program that is actually used to produce sports certificates.
The autodidact was “indistinguishable from a specialist”.
With the documents, the 36-year-old had successfully applied to the Ebersberg district clinic in April 2020 – and this is where it gets exciting – and then worked there for five months as a paramedic until the fraud was discovered. Another application for a mini-job as a paramedic got stuck at the experimental stage. Now one would like to think that it would be noticed very quickly if someone practices a profession for which they are not qualified. However, this non-qualification for the accused appears to exist only on paper.
He had already started training as a paramedic, but had not completed it. He seems to have acquired the rest of the necessary know-how “autodidactically”, as defender Uwe Paschertz put it. Because in these five months the accused has done good work, very good even. Paschertz extensively quotes clinic manager Stefan Huber, to whom the accused also apologized and who only had “exuberant praise” left: The accused was technically and socially very competent, indistinguishable from a normal specialist, no one was harmed. This may sound like a statement to protect the hospital, but in fact no damage could be proven. Judge Vera Hörauf also acknowledged that because of the defendant’s commitment and skills, “it was all about fraud,” not something worse.
The defendant did not want to be a burden to anyone
But his ability is not the only thing that speaks for him. The defendant appeared consistently remorseful and confessed. Right from the start he admitted everything. The not-quite-paramedic now also has a legal job as a documentation worker, as which he supports the Corona vaccination campaign. There is also a new apartment and a new girlfriend, “so everything is fine privately,” as the defense attorney interprets these facts. In addition, the motivation for the fraud was special: instead of getting medication or otherwise getting rich quickly, the accused simply wanted to do regular work “so as not to be a burden on the state and my family,” like himself said. And all this during the pandemic, “in which clinic staff of all kinds is rare and he was on the front line to help people,” added Paschertz. When asked by the judge why the accused would not complete his training or start again, he explained that he was unable to do so due to his criminal record. “That’s a shame,” both agreed.
As ambivalent as the person of the accused and his actions are, the closing arguments of the public prosecutor’s office and the defense are just as contradictory. The former demanded one year and three months imprisonment without probation due to the high level of criminal activity, the many previous convictions and conditions of probation as well as the resulting negative social prognosis. As the prosecutor said this, the accused visibly fought back tears. The defense, on the other hand, asked for leniency because of the special circumstances, either in the form of a fine or a suspended prison sentence. In his closing statement, the accused emphasized that he was sorry that he wanted to make an effort and that he had only just built something for himself. “I’m afraid of losing everything again,” he said dejectedly.
In a philosophical discussion of principles, one could weigh the pros and cons forever, and many would certainly side with the defense. Unfortunately for the defendant, the courtroom is not a lecture hall. The judge quickly came to the final verdict: one year and one month in prison, without parole. She said it would be “unplaceable” to allow parole due to the recent release from prison, the suspended sentences and the criminal record.