Press Release: 13th Day of the Trial Against Michael Ballweg – Tax Investigator's "Life Experience" and Undefined Purposes of Querdenken in the Spotlight

Unclear Definitions of “Querdenken”

A central issue during the proceedings was the lack of a clear definition of the tax purposes related to “Querdenken.” None of the authorities involved – whether the tax office, public prosecutor's office, or police – could precisely define what constitutes a purpose of “Querdenken” and what does not. The tax investigator admitted that he had “formed his own understanding.” This arbitrary approach led to expenditures being evaluated inconsistently and individually by members of the investigative group “Kreuz.”

Attorney Ralf Ludwig criticized: "How can a trial proceed when neither the prosecution nor the tax authorities can define what qualifies as a 'purpose of Querdenken'? Instead of clarity, this case relies on speculative and arbitrary judgments."

Failure to Account for VAT Prepayments

Media Access GmbH, whose tax matters are central to the indictment, had prepaid €64,729.33 in VAT. However, these prepayments were neither included in the investigations nor acknowledged in the indictment. Instead, the prosecution based its case on the findings of the tax investigator, which were neither supported by an official tax assessment nor validated through thorough examination.

Attorney Hans Böhme commented: "The prosecution’s case is built on the assumptions of a 34-year-old tax investigator who relies solely on his 'life experience.' Ignoring prepayments of €64,729.33 demonstrates the glaring lack of professionalism in this case."

Attorney Ralf Ludwig further criticized the actions of the tax authorities and the prosecution: "This investigation appears to be based less on facts and more on subjective interpretations and hasty decisions. The prosecution adopted these inadequate foundations into their indictment without proper scrutiny."

Arbitrary Judgments Instead of Expertise

The tax investigator admitted to classifying expenses such as tea or a power generator as personal based solely on his personal judgment. There were no objective criteria applied. Moreover, the witness contradicted himself on key points. For example, he initially denied the existence of a safe within the fixed assets of Media Access GmbH but later, after a recess, acknowledged that such a safe did exist.

Attorney Ralf Ludwig stated: "It’s absurd that this indictment is built on a collection of subjective opinions and arbitrary assessments. This approach is neither legally nor professionally acceptable."

Conclusion and Outlook

Today’s hearing once again highlighted that the indictment rests on shaky grounds. The defense harshly criticized the prosecution for failing to provide a clear definition of “Querdenken” or a solid, professional basis for their case. Instead, the indictment appears to be a product of speculation and inadequate investigation.

Michael Ballweg summarized: "The prosecution has concocted a narrative that has nothing to do with reality. The gaps in their case are becoming more apparent with each passing day."

The next hearing is scheduled for December 19, 2024, where the head of the tax investigation unit is expected to testify.