In the rate shows on television, the questions are often deposited with amounts of money – sometimes this is also the case in court. The 2,800-euro question for a 38-year-old is: What is his ID doing in another man’s underpants? For the public prosecutor, the answer is clear: the one with the ID in his underpants should take the theoretical driving test for the other, for a fee. This brought the 38-year-old already a penalty order for misuse of identity papers, just in the amount of 2800 euros. But this does not want to pay, which is why the case has now been heard at the district court.
The matter is being tried for the fourth time because the main witness never appears
The defendant’s defense attorney said at the beginning of the meeting that no one would comment on the matter. This was not the first time in the case, the process participants have now come together for the fourth time – and they will probably have to do it again. The reason is always the same: the most important witness, i.e. the allegedly paid examinee, did not appear. Even the threat of a fine had failed to convince him to come to Ebersberg this time.
Instead, a police officer who was involved in the arrest of the examinee more than two years ago in Ebersberg testified. Indications were followed that there were irregularities in the identification of the test participants, specifically false or third-party IDs were mentioned. According to the witness, he immediately recognized the paid examinee because he had arrested him earlier for the same crimes. And this time he had again taken a driving test under a false name.
The wrong examinee has already confessed to the allegations and has also been sentenced for it
However, not under the name of the now accused. Because, as the witness testified when asked by the defense attorney, the wrong examinee was caught in flagrante delicto – albeit at a later driving test than the one for which the accused was registered. The test candidate then initially escaped the police check, but a little later he was arrested – and the accused’s ID card was found in his underpants. The arrested man then admitted that he had taken the driving test twice on the day in question – he repeated this at his own court hearing nine months ago.
The second witness was not able to report anything new, he was an examiner at the TÜV at the time, but has now changed jobs. He can hardly remember the incident at all. He still remembers that there was a police operation at the driver’s license office once – or maybe several times – but after such a long time he can no longer remember when that was and the exact circumstances. Neither does he know today whether it was compulsory to wear a mask at the time in autumn 2020 and if so, whether the examinees had to take off the masks during the ID check.
The defender then suggested that the matter be stopped against a payment of money. After all, his client could hardly be proven that he had instructed the witness, who had not appeared several times, to take the driving test. Judge Vera Hörauf recalled that the test candidate had even been in court for both tests under a false name and was also legally sentenced for both. According to the lawyer, this could also have been a tactical admission. After all, the long-term examinee had several previous convictions, so a confession could definitely decide whether the sentence should be suspended – as it happened.
According to the defense attorney, there could be 100 reasons for identity cards in someone else’s underpants
In addition, his client cannot be expected to wait any longer for a decision. After all, this is not the first attempt and the accused is now also having difficulties with the authorities because of the eternally hanging process. The district administration department only wants to issue a required document once a verdict has been issued, the lawyer continued, “legal certainty has to be created”.
According to the public prosecutor, he could already imagine an attitude under other circumstances – but here there is the confession of the allegedly paid examinee. In addition, there is no reasonable explanation for the suspect’s identification in the test candidate’s underpants, added the chair. The defense attorney replied that he could easily come up with 100 reasons, none of which provided any proof of his client’s guilt.
Whether the man in whose underpants the ID was found has a good explanation will be seen in two weeks. Then the negotiation should continue. In order for the long-term examinee to appear, he should then be picked up by the police.