PressSplit
District Court Laufen (symbolic image) © hhö
A 38-year-old teacher receives a fine of 4,000 euros for fraud involving subsidies. She moved without reporting this to the Bayerische Landesbodenkreditanstalt. She is now facing court.
Bad Reichenhall/Running – The teacher, now 38, bought an apartment in the spa town in 2019. And for that she received 10,000 euros in funding from the Bavarian State Land Credit Institute But this funding is tied to conditions. Because she had not fully fulfilled them, she was given a Penalty order for fraud over 4000 euros in the house. The case has now landed before the Laufen criminal judge.
The woman submitted the application for funding in October 2019 and received notification and money shortly afterwards. If she did not use the apartment herself for at least five years, i.e. rent it out or leave it empty, she would have had to report this. When she moved to the neighboring county to be with her new partner shortly before the expiry of this five-year period, in August 2022, she did not report it. “During this phase of moving and refurnishing, I honestly didn’t think about this loan anymore,” explained the 38-year-old and asserted: “I never had any intention of enriching myself.”
What she had done was to immediately register in her new municipality. The lender had noticed this during a random check. And so the defendant received a letter from the Bodenkreditanstalt in August 2022. “Still no amount and no deadline”explained the teacher, who had already completed four calendar years with 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. “If I had had that in mind, I wouldn’t have moved until February 2023.”
Defendant: “I never had any intention of enriching myself.”
Another letter from September either did not reach her or was somehow lost. “Of course, I immediately repaid the 2000 euros in October”assured the teacher. But by then the matter had already taken its course. According to the penal order, she was to 80 daily rates of 50 euros each, i.e. 4000 euros, for fraud Attorney Sven Ryfisch lodged an objection against this, because a legally binding judgment of this amount could also have professional consequences.
Judge Josef Haiker himself suggested a legal discussion between the parties. This was relatively brief. “Fraud requires intent and the intention to enrich oneself”emphasized prosecutor Mathias Schramm afterwards; he believed the defendant and requested an acquittal. Defense attorney Ryfisch agreed “completely.”
Haiker admitted that the matter “today completely different” represent. “You simply forgot.” Last but not least, the defendant immediately registered in her new municipality; if she had intended to commit fraud, she would have simply re-registered six months later. “Nobody would have ever noticed.” Therefore, acquittal. The costs of the proceedings will be borne by the state treasury. (haha)
More on the topic
