Actually, the final word is spoken: The extraordinary Prosecutor Ulrich has found Neither last week that the Lucerne Prosecutor had set out to right a criminal case against the Zug cantonal councillor Beat Villiger (CVP).
- timer had been two incidents of 2017: at that Time, the Lucerne police caught a woman twice while Driving without a license. The car the woman was traveling was redeemed on Villiger. In later questioning, the woman presented then all of a sudden a contract of sale that the car is already at the time of the first control you should have.
The Lucerne Prosecutor's office determined against Villiger due to the suspicion of forgery, and Leave a car to a Person without a passport, your procedure finally. In consequence of a private person's complaint against two state-filed lawyers due to the suspicion of favouritism and abuse of office. These allegations has refuted Neither last week.
On Monday were able to take the media insight into his Attitude. And this is far less clear in their discharge of the Lucerne Prosecutor's office, as it was expected that the verbal Information from last week.
So Neither criticised, the public Prosecutor's office have rashly believed Villiger's assertions, the contract of sale had not been predated. The prosecutors had stated that no evidence, "that this Treaty was agreed to by the parties intentionally with a wrong date".
"There is little evidence of a Simulation, and, above all, a backdating of the contract of purchase existed."Ulrich Weder, associate Prosecutor
holds Neither, however, is: "This conclusion is, in any case, such apodictic, not pull. Quite the opposite: There were very good indications for a Simulation and, above all, a backdating of the contract of sale." The Villiger and the woman presented the contract date referred to Neither as "implausible", Villiger's statements as "unbelievable protection statement". And that the Prosecutor's office found no evidence of backdating, "in summary, it is not comprehensible".
asked why the process setting from the point of view of was not still. To do this, he writes, that the backdating could not be shown, and that the purchase contract could only from formal legal reasons, no relevant criminal false certification. Therefore, the prosecutors had not exceeded its margin of discretion, as you set the procedure.
the second allegation, to the Left of a car to a Person without a passport, Neither of the Prosecutor's office. But here, too, not just a Persil ticket.
So it came to the first police control to a telephone conversation between Villiger and a police officer. This has been pointed out according to Villiger, "" the woman don't have a driver's license. The Prosecutor emphasized in the ruling, however, the police have only "hinted" that the woman had no driver's license. Therefore, I may Villiger rely on the (false) assurance of the friendly woman she was in possession of an ID card.
Neither of these arguments finds "little understandable", but in an Overall assessment, again, to the conclusion that no discretion is exceeded.
interpret Obvious, so Weders available is, on the whole, there would have to be more serious omissions of the public Prosecutor's office, in order to meet the circumstances of favoritism and abuse of power.
criticism of this argument, a legal expert Markus Mohler is practicing. "Neither commits the same error as the Prosecutor's office: He had taken the exculpatory circumstances, and hardly onerous," says former Prosecutor and former Basler chief of police. Neither stress, the public Prosecutor is bound by the principle of "in dubio pro form" – would have to raise in case of doubt, accusation. In fact, however, the prosecution has not complied with this principle.
Mohler criticized, in particular, that the procedure be Left on a vehicle had been set on a Person without a driver's license. The justification of the Prosecutor's office he calls "outrageous".
Created: 15.05.2019, 10:28 PM