Start of process: Former employee puts a heavy burden on Schuhbeck

Alfons Schuhbeck looks battered that day.

The 73-year-old, who otherwise often appears jovial and talkative, looks pale.

He is very reserved, only speaks quietly to his lawyers, confirming his name and the names of his parents to the court - otherwise he is silent.

Sometimes he looks up.

There is a lot at stake for the well-known restaurateur, who has already cooked for the Beatles, Angela Merkel and the Queen, before the Munich I district court.

"A prison sentence would ruin your client", this is what his lawyers told the court in a preliminary talk, said the presiding judge Andrea Wagner.

But such a thing is in the room and could threaten Schuhbeck in the event of a conviction.

Because the public prosecutor has accused him of tax evasion in the millions.

According to the prosecution, it should be more than 2.3 million euros.

According to a ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in 2012, there is usually a risk of imprisonment without probation from a sum of one million euros in tax evasion.

The allegations weigh heavily

The allegations against Schuhbeck weigh heavily: The restaurateur is said to have diverted income from two of his restaurants and thus smuggled large sums past the tax authorities - in one of these restaurants with the help of a computer system specially developed for this purpose.

So says the public prosecutor's office in their indictment, which accuses him of 25 counts of tax evasion between 2009 and 2016.

The man who admits to having developed such a cover-up program is sitting in the dock with Schuhbeck, accused of aiding and abetting tax evasion.

This ex-employee makes a comprehensive confession through his lawyer - and heavily incriminates his former boss.

It was Schuhbeck who commissioned him to develop such a system for one of his restaurants.

It was saved on a USB stick and he gave it to Schuhbeck – just Schuhbeck.

The IT expert is therefore not only a defendant, but also a key witness in this process.

He says he developed the tool because Schuhbeck asked him to do it and because he was economically dependent on him.

Lawyers see inconsistencies

Schuhbeck, who appeared in court in a white shirt and dark blue jacket, listened to all of this - as well as the reading of the indictment - largely motionless.

But his lawyers see "doubts and inconsistencies" in the allegations against their client.

Lawyer Sascha König says: "It may turn out at the end of the process that Mr. Schuhbeck is not the perpetrator, but the victim himself, because not only the tax authorities, but first and foremost he was cheated."

In its initial statement, the defense is therefore based on the possibility that it could have been someone else who reached into the tills of two of his Munich restaurants - and not the boss himself. On some of the crimes in question, for example, he was not in Germany at all been, emphasize König and his colleague Markus Gotzens.

And where the millions in cash remained that were diverted is also completely unclear.

"The investigations raised more questions than they answered," says König after the negotiations - he doesn't allow journalists to ask questions.

For Schuhbeck, the presumption of innocence applies until a conviction – like everyone else.

And Judge Wagner also emphasizes that, of course, only the main hearing will reveal whether Schuhbeck is guilty or not.

However, this Wednesday - as required by the Code of Criminal Procedure - she also gives an insight into a conversation that took place between the parties involved in the proceedings before the start of this hearing.

Have third parties tampered with the safe?

The lawyers had already put forward this argument, saying "that it was questionable who did the cash register manipulation" and "that third parties also had access to the safe in the office".

The aim was to stop the proceedings - or at least parts of the proceedings.

A request that was rejected with reference to "reasonable suspicion".

The cash register could also have been manipulated retrospectively, the court explains, for example.

And further: If the co-defendant - as he states - created the concealment tool for Schuhbeck, then that could be "a very strong indication" that this tool should also be used.

The fact that a third party could then have accidentally accessed this tool was judged by the court in the preliminary discussion as a scenario "that contradicts every life experience".

And where the money is supposed to have gone - that's not a question that the court has to deal with.

Will this preliminary assessment by the court also be valid after the decisive main hearing?

This will only become apparent at the judgement.

The lawyers also asked in the preliminary talk about the possibility of getting a suspended sentence with at least a partial confession, according to Judge Wagner.

At the beginning of the process, Schuhbeck says nothing.

Schuhbeck's lawyers initially left open whether this should remain the case in the 18 days of negotiations scheduled until December 22nd.