When the public prosecutor's office in the Feldmann trial began their pleading a week ago, they made a preliminary remark before addressing the evidence.

For a few minutes, the prosecutors only spoke about the criminal offense of accepting an advantage, the charge that Frankfurt's deposed mayor has been in front of the regional court since October.

It was obviously important to them to clarify what this process is actually about - and that some witness statements or other evidence that observers interpreted as exculpatory or whose content they consider not criminally relevant, in their eyes, it according to the criminal norm of accepting benefits it is.

Anna Sophia Lang

Editor in the Rhein-Main-Zeitung.

  • Follow I follow

Accepting an advantage, they began, is an official offence, just like bribery: only someone who holds an office can be the perpetrator.

The purpose of the regulations is to maintain the integrity of the public service and the general public's trust in the objectivity and independence of administrative actions.

The mere appearance that a public official is for sale is enough to damage trust.

“What is an advantage?” the prosecutors asked and gave a direct answer: Any benefit to which neither the public official nor third parties are entitled and which objectively improves his economic or personal situation.

Public officials must “act with impartiality”

The prosecutors also spoke about the difference to bribery.

There, in return for the advantage granted, a concrete, non-compliant official act is necessary.

However, if the benefit is accepted, the benefit is granted for the general performance of the service.

The decisive factor is whether a so-called unlawful agreement is concluded in which the parties decide on the "reciprocal relationship" - without this having to exist as a document.

And, as the public prosecutor put it: “It is irrelevant whether the service actually comes about.

It is sufficient that the unlawful agreement based on this exists.” The question of whether the public official has an inner reservation is also irrelevant.

"What quality must the unjust agreement have?" the prosecutors asked next: It is enough if the attention is aimed at the general goodwill of the public official, which should be activated "on occasion".

"Climate care" and "feeding" are the relevant keywords.

"The feeling of being indebted to the other person when exercising their office." These requirements for public officials were deliberately made strict by the legislature.

Because for a community based on the rule of law, it is essential "that officials act independently and uninfluenced".

At the end of this introduction to their pleadings, the prosecutors asked the all-important question: "It's that easy for a public official to commit a crime?

Yes."

end of the process in sight

It remains to be seen whether the district court sees all of this fulfilled in the Feldmann case.

The defense, in turn, has not yet completed its second plea.

Feldmann's lawyers have often stated that they consider the public prosecutor's assessment to be completely exaggerated.

In his pleading, one of the defense attorneys, who was a public prosecutor before working as a criminal defense attorney and who, among other things, conducted proceedings against civil servants and members of the public service, put it in an attempt to "strip on the robe of corruption" over an old bond.

Meanwhile, it is becoming apparent that the court will not announce its verdict this Wednesday.

The second defense attorney's plea must first be ended, after which the accused has the opportunity to have the last word.

The court may set a pronouncement date later this week.