Since October 2020, members of parliament on the Wireguard Inquiry have sought to clarify the political responsibility for the financial scandal. The final report is now available and Finance Minister Olaf Scholes is not functioning properly from a central perspective. Matthias Hour (CDU), head of the union faction on the committee, said the finance ministry had looked the other way, not acting and making the investigation difficult.
Scholes presented himself as a “quiet minister”, used fewer excuses and delivered files late. The financial oversight authority Baffin and the finance ministry responsible for it “have been in a deep oversight slumber for years.”
In a final statement, Bundestock chairman Wolfgang Schuble (CDU) handed it over to them, saying Hours had no carde plans. In a statement co-produced with the Social Democrats, there was no statement to the contrary because the Social Democrats wanted to defend Shoals. “From the beginning, the Social Democrats wanted to defend their candidate for president,” Hour said.
The Union Parliamentary Committee – unlike the Afti Parliamentary Committee – did not call for Sholes to resign.
The former EY selector wants to prevent his name from being mentioned
The commission of inquiry should look into whether the supervisory authorities and the federal government have done too little to investigate suspicious cases on the wireguard in the past.
In this context, the union also strongly criticized EY, the auditing firm responsible for the wirecard. Hour said the wirecard scandal was “a testament to the auditors’ failure.”
One of these former auditors now wants to legally block the release of the final report of the Bundestock Commission of Inquiry on Tuesday as planned. The man did not want to be named.
On Tuesday, the Berlin Executive Court announced that it had received an urgent application for a restraining order. The court wanted the application to be decided during the day, and a court spokesman said Bundestag had previously had a short time to comment.
In the application submitted to the German Press Agency, the Munich lawyer of the former examiner asserts the personal rights of his client. It is “not a person in contemporary history, he is not in general.” In the case of Wirecard, there was not an initial suspicion against him for more than a year. Therefore, paragraphs with the customer’s name should not be published in the final report of the panel.
The former examiner was called as a witness in the inquiry committee but refused to testify.
Hans Michelbaugh (CSU), deputy chairman of the Commission of Inquiry, said that under Section 44 of the Basic Law, it is not possible for an administrative court to exert such influence on a panel of inquiry, with a view to an emergency application. Paragraph 4 of Section 44 states: “The decisions of the Inquiry Committees are beyond judicial debate. Courts are free to evaluate and evaluate facts based on the trial. “
Wirecard, a payment service provider, filed for bankruptcy at the end of June 2020 and is said to have falsified its balance sheets for years. The commission of inquiry set up in October worked for several months on the events surrounding the bankrupt ex-Docs group, particularly the actions of the federal government and its subordinates.