Trial for fictional NSU victim: lawyer suspected of fraud

Icon: enlarge

Defendant in court (here on August 7th): lawyer suspected of fraud

Things are going well for the defendant that day before the Aachen Regional Court. Lawyer Ralph Willms has to answer in court for fraud, among other things. The lawyer from Eschweiler is said to have represented a co-plaintiff in the NSU trial who never existed. In the Loveparade proceedings, according to the indictment, he is said to have given up the mandate of a joint plaintiff to another lawyer, Mustafa Kaplan, without her knowledge and consent. This Wednesday is about the co-plaintiff in the Loveparade trial. The woman, 28, is due to speak out in court about her contact with Willms in 2014.

 "I don't remember much," she says right at the beginning. At the time she was in Willms' office, had a chat with him and also signed something. Willms said he'd be in touch. "But it didn't come to that." She no longer knows what she talked to the lawyer about. She does not remember whether she gave documents to the lawyer. Which and when not at all. The witness can say little with certainty. In any case, she had never met a lawyer named Mustafa Kaplan and only heard his name afterwards. 

The witness had presented it differently to the police. The judge reads excerpts from the interrogation protocol. Accordingly, Willms is said to have told her that he could not represent her, but would pass on her mandate to her colleague Kaplan. "Was there such information?" Asks the judge: "It is important that you remember exactly." The witness swims. "Sounds silly now," she says: "Maybe he said that, but I can't remember it." 

Then Mustafa Kaplan, 52, enters the courtroom. The lawyer from Cologne is used to speaking in court. He is currently defending Stephan Ernst, the alleged murderer of Walter Lübcke. Kaplan brought a lawyer. 

The judge instructs Kaplan that he must tell the truth, but may remain silent on individual questions if he runs the risk of incriminating himself. The Cologne Public Prosecutor had brought charges of attempted fraud against Kaplan in this matter; the Cologne District Court had not admitted the charges. The procedure could be restarted if there are new indications. But Kaplan does not want to remain silent. 

"But I have no concrete memory"

He tells of the NSU trial in Munich. Kaplan was an accessory prosecutor. At some point he met Willms. According to his memory, he approached him in Munich about the fall of 2014 about the Love Parade process. Willms said he had several mandate inquiries and asked if Kaplan wanted to do this with him. Kaplan agreed. At the beginning of 2015, Willms came to his office in Cologne, gave him the power of attorney and other documents from a client. "I have in my head that he said he discussed everything with her. She knows that I should continue with this." 

Kaplan then applied to the Duisburg Regional Court for admission of the secondary action. He says he is assuming that he has sent the client copies of all letters "because I always do that". He has no concrete memory of it. Kaplan also says that he "actually never met" the client. 

The judge asks how the power of attorney with the signature of the client and Kaplan's office stamp came about. Kaplan can no longer say. "Is there such a thing as a blank power of attorney where you put the stamp on it afterwards?" Asks the judge. "That is theoretically possible," says Kaplan. "But I have no concrete memory of how it was in this case." 

The chief prosecutor asks how it came about that Kaplan resigned from the Loveparade mandate on October 12, 2015. Kaplan reports on the SPIEGEL report, through which the hoax surrounding Willms' false co-plaintiff was exposed on October 2, 2015. He then called Willms and told him that the Loveparade client never contacted him, nor did he answer his letters. Kaplan does not say how Willms reacted. He is also not asked. Kaplan says he then resigned the Loveparade mandate "promptly". The Chief Public Prosecutor asks again: "What was the reason for you to resign?" "She didn't respond to my letter," says Kaplan. He says nothing of the sudden distrust of Willms, of doubts. 

"Was there anything unusual for you about the process?" Asks Willms' defense attorney, Peter Nickel - and summarizes: "Willms asks if you would like to take on a mandate. They meet in your office. He gives you documents. There was anything where you thought: this is weird, this is disreputable? " "From my point of view, it was a completely normal process," says Kaplan. "For me there was nothing unusual or problematic about this process." 

Monthly installments of 1500 euros

At the beginning of the day of the hearing, the presiding judge announced that the woman who Willms claims to have been his client Meral Keskin in the NSU proceedings died in April 2020. According to Willms' account, the real victim of the NSU, Atilla Ö., Is said to have deceived him about the existence of his alleged client. He is said to have introduced Willms to his mother, Sennur Ö., As Meral Keskin. Both can no longer comment on this. Because Atilla Ö. died before his mother, in September 2017. During the preliminary investigation, he said that Willms had always known that Meral Keskin did not exist. 

Willms had received more than 211,000 euros for his work when the hoax was exposed. Before the Aachen Regional Court, the judge announced on that day that the lawyer - unlike what it sounded like last time - not only paid back 1500 euros of the money, but significantly more. Currently there is still a remaining amount of around 145,000 euros, which Willms will pay off in monthly installments of 1500 euros.