Enlarge image
Patricia Schlesinger
Photo:
Paul Zinken/DPA
A case, a case!
The director of the RBB has "resigned" as such and as chairwoman of the ARD.
Nothing (I) currently know about the chairmanship of the Supervisory Board at Degeto.
As a rule, no one likes to “step back” from whatever, especially not at the first request, which, as is well known, is not long in coming whenever and wherever there is something to suspect.
By the third repetition at the latest, the headline reads "The pressure is increasing," and the best friends escape to safety overnight.
In this respect, one can, at least for the time being, let go of the really big moral caliber, which refers to the fact that Mrs. Patricia Schlesinger initially did what one does when one thinks one is at the top and quickly shakes little envy and resentment beetles off one's feet to be able to
As experience shows, this does not always fail, but it often does, if only because of the autonomy of an industry that not only specializes in the continuous consumption of life fates, but is highly dependent on it.
As an experienced creator of »Panorama«, you should actually know this very well, where you always liked to see yourself as a co-inventor of the art of investigative sinking.
But as it goes in life: No sooner have you reached the honey pot and integrated this into self-reflection as the inevitable result of your own top performance, when the little devils begin to gnaw at the backbone of your soul and cloud your self-knowledge.
So now we have an overall quite respectable case in Germany: still a bit unclear and scary, but with a pleasant, holiday-compatible, »picture«-on-the-beach-compatible clarity, what you mean by war, gas, corona, cum-ex and so further can not really say.
And also from an absolutely irresistible framing localization: the-up there, morally specialized woman, forced contribution, double standards, state, greed, luxury.
Now we hear and read: "Now the public prosecutor is investigating." In the case of "Panorama" this is the triumphant final sentence of a really well-run ship-battle story.
We are therefore expecting the first reports as soon as possible about the punishment Ms. Schlesinger "is now threatened with" (this is always the maximum punishment threatened by any law, which is never imposed anyway; but it sounds promising).
If you, dear reader, are hoping for an expert opinion on the outcome of the proceedings, I have to disappoint you: I'll do the devil.
Just as little as I have to appreciate evidence, to evaluate circumstantial evidence that we do not know, or to confirm or refute you, ladies and gentlemen, subject to the law, in one of your dreamed-up prejudices.
May I take this opportunity to once again state that this column has neither the intention nor the task of arguing about guilt and innocence.
The "Schlesinger case" is currently moving in the area of (media-political) scandal and (criminal) reporting of suspicions.
That's enough.
What's the matter?
But perhaps it makes sense to talk briefly about the meaning of the terms that are buzzing around there and are sometimes used again as established results: "infidelity", "expense fraud", "nepotism".
Not to mention the provisional marginal orchestration: »luxury office«, »massage seats«, »private trips«.
Slow down, dear hunting party!
And, as always when you're on the trail of depravity, occasionally think of the title of an early (1971) LP by combo Uriah Heep: "Look at Yourself!"
more on the subject
Broadcasting Council on Schlesinger's resignation: "Greed eats the brain" by Anton Rainer
"Compliance" means: reliability, adherence to rules.
I don't know about your own compliance, reader: as a patient, taxpayer, fee payer, buyer or seller, notary public or gas station cashier.
Most of the time, that doesn't concern me.
On the other hand, one hears all sorts of things: "Corruption and bribery morass everywhere!" tirelessly call out loudest those who are guaranteed to have little idea.
On the one hand, this is not surprising, but on the other hand it is not proof.
Fraud
"Fraud," for example, is a venerable criminal offense.
It has been formulated in Section 263 of the Penal Code since 1871.
On the “objective” (“external”) side, it presupposes: 1) act of deception, 2) error, 3) disposal of assets, 4) financial loss.
All four elements must be "causally" linked.
This is harder to determine than one might think.
On the »subjective« (inner) side, criminal liability presupposes: 1) at least conditional intent from one to four plus 2) additional (!) the »intent« to enrich oneself or a third (natural or legal) person in monetary terms.
It doesn't matter whether this intention is realized - if you want to express yourself in a legally educated manner, this is called "excessive inner tendency": the intention must go further than what has been achieved in reality.
For now, believe me
that this legal situation could also be different in human history, but has a very justifiable meaning, has been researched for about 2000 years and looks back on several kilometers of scientific literature from all continents.
With the best will in the world, it is impossible to say whether this was the case here or in the individual case;
therefore, one should also refrain from pretending to know, suspect, or judge anything concrete.
infidelity
The offense of "infidelity" is, many say, one of the most unclear and arbitrary-prone in the penal code.
This is true, although most people you ask think they know what is going on.
In the practically most important variant of paragraph 266 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code, it is criminally »disloyal« if someone 1) has a duty to »look after« someone else’s assets, 2) violates this obligation and 3) thereby causes a financial disadvantage (damage) to the assets to be looked after .
An "enrichment intention" as in the case of fraud is not a prerequisite: neither the perpetrator nor a third person has to be objectively or intentionally enriched;
the (conditional) intent to damage the assets under management in breach of duty is sufficient.
Hopefully, with a bit of imagination, you can imagine what abysses of »disputes«, interests, variants of facts and assessments can be hidden behind such brittle formulations.
The first important question when applying the facts is the suitability of the possible perpetrator: does the person have a "duty to look after" someone else's property?
This is clear in many cases (cashier, treasurer, managing director), but not in many others (e.g. does a doctor in private practice have to look after the assets of the health insurance fund?).
The second often difficult question is whether there has been a breach of this duty.
Here, too, there are easy cases (“reaching the cash register”) and difficult ones (risk-taking by board members).
No one can say whether having a parquet floor laid instead of a carpet or commissioning a chief driver to make private trips is a breach of duty by a broadcast director until the duties have been examined and determined very precisely.
They can result from laws, contracts, permits or internal rules of »compliance«, breaches of duty from overextending rights or circumvention of counter-controls.
Where there is "disadvantage" (damage) there need not necessarily be a breach of duty;
the saying of smoke and fire does not apply here.
Conversely, not every breach of duty leads to a disadvantage.
Assessing damage is often a difficult problem both in fact and in law.
If a company's investment fails, there is damage
but perhaps taking the risk was management's job.
Conversely, an investment contrary to duty can be successful or a disadvantage can be offset by an opposite advantage.
When examining a disadvantage, it is often necessary to work with hypotheses: Would the disadvantage have also occurred if the behavior had been dutiful?
Was the breach of duty that arose, i.e. the imminent danger of loss, a loss?
Perhaps the most astonishing phenomenon related to infidelity is that in Germany there are no criminal offenses of »mismanagement« and general »disloyalty to the state«.
The senseless and pointless, but short-term popular squandering of public funds by political decision-makers can usually be dealt with without consequences by accepting or passing on »political responsibility«.
Before getting too outraged about this, however, one should also consider that in states that punish "mismanagement" the offense is often used to prosecute unpopular predecessors.
corruption
"Corruption" is not a criminal offense, but a criminological paraphrase of a rather complicated network.
In general, it can be said that corruption is always based on a so-called unlawful agreement.
This is what is called an express or tacit agreement that the granting of an advantage should be in exchange for an official act;
this association must be »unfair«.
The classic case is »bribery« (vice versa: corruptibility), in which an advantage is given to a »public official« or a third person so that he or she carries out an official act contrary to his or her duties.
If the official act is instead dutiful, the whole thing is called »giving of an advantage« (vice versa: acceptance of an advantage).
Criminal corrupt relationships exist in the public sphere,
where »officials« are involved (paragraphs 331 and following StGB).
But they also exist in the private "business" area (section 299 of the Criminal Code);
plus special areas like healthcare bribery and bribery of MPs with all sorts of difficult issues and problems to detect and prosecute.
advertisement
Thomas Fisher
to be right
Miscellaneous from the world of criminal law: The best SPIEGEL columns by the ex-federal judge
Publisher: Droemer HC
Number of pages: 304
Miscellaneous from the world of criminal law: The best SPIEGEL columns by the ex-federal judge
Publisher: Droemer HC
Number of pages: 304
Buy for €20.00
price inquiry time
08/12/2022 09:49 am
No guarantee
Order from Amazon
Order from Thalia
Order from Weltbild
Product reviews are purely editorial and independent.
Via the so-called affiliate links above, we usually receive a commission from the retailer when you make a purchase.
More information here
In addition, there are numerous "grey areas" that are reported in the media, mostly under keywords such as "nepotism", "favouritism", "combined interests" and the like.
It gets a bit gross when the investigators uncovering dark secrets boast about illegal source research themselves.
Of course, always for the good of the general public!
The findings mentioned are not criminal offences, often not even precise descriptions of concrete structures, but often general paraphrases enriched with "morality" and requirements for "decent behavior".
Faulty morals are a matter of taste, not a criminal offence.
"People know each other, they help each other," says people from Cologne all over the country, and even those who like to get outraged about such things know, when it matters or the opportunity arises, in countless cases the brother of a good friend, whom he or who owes him a favor.
compliance
This is by no means intended to "play down" corruption or even gloss over fraud and infidelity.
On the contrary, we know that corrupt structures, once they have eaten their way into a state, are extremely threatening and can hardly be eliminated.
The extremely popular position that has gained "compliance" at almost all levels of society in recent decades is therefore no coincidence and is not just an industry that flushes billions into the coffers of consultants.
Not everything called "compliance" deserves the good reputation of the word.
It is not uncommon for compliance structures to also serve to keep the highest hierarchical levels free from any responsibility:
The enthusiasm for compliance in the population is great, as is the enthusiasm for data protection or confidentiality.
Nevertheless, many millions of citizens go home after work and tell the companions of their lives in detail about patients, clients, colleagues, customers, business and private secrets.
Almost no one feels like a delinquent doing this, just as no one feels like a thief picking up a couple of pens or a crook who chats from home instead of creating sales charts.
A great many people are of the opinion that the really punishable area of corruption and infidelity begins just above one's own life practice.
And "at the top" is actually almost everything disreputable.
It is enough to read that a car costs almost 150,000 euros or even has massage seats.
Dreadful!
Incomprehensible!
That must be punishable somehow in the country where Porsche reports record sales and the E-Class from Mercedes is hard to find for under 65,000!
Where people have been arguing for years whether a minimum wage of twelve euros an hour is a national catastrophe, an annual salary of 300,000 gross (let's say 180,000 net) is a high income.
Managing directors of medium-sized companies may see things differently, as do soccer players and quiz masters.
The tabloids probably don't know whether it's "too much" for a director.
It is just as unclear as the answer to the question of whether a chief driver can also drive spouses if this is correctly billed privately.
And that the question of the infidelity of a radio director should be decided according to whether she spends 70 or 130 euros per guest at business meals, every small self-employed person who never forgets to get a deductible bill "at the Italian" may ask himself.
Incidence?
So we don't know whether the RBB scandal is a case for really big outrage.
We assume that a state that is prosecuting its president for accepting a bobby car will have the power to clarify this properly and properly.
This usually takes longer than the breathlessness of the tension can be endured, and that's a good thing.
There are often results that not everyone likes.
There is nothing wrong with that either.
Let's just wait and see.
It is a completely different question whether "the public service system" has once again been exposed, betrayed, proved to be superfluous or otherwise discredited.
There is a high level of plausibility for this, and the song of praise for the multi-opinionated, thriving private broadcaster landscape can now be heard everywhere.
That's another topic that can't be settled with a quickly scandalized "case."
In any case, the following applies: A company (here: an institution) in which the chief drivers are questioned as to whether they are also occasionally sent to fetch pizza has a real problem.
