His attacks on the public prosecutor’s office were notorious in the Wirecard trial. In the fraud proceedings against his client Markus Braun, the former Wirecard boss, the eloquent star defense attorney Alfred Dierlamm was always responsible for the loud sounds. Now the 60-year-old has resigned from his mandate. The reason: Dierlamm no longer received any money from Braun’s insurance companies. The loss of his defense attorney is a serious setback for the main defendant Braun. Dierlamm told the Reuters news agency on Wednesday that he had resigned from the trial before the Munich regional court for financial reasons. Because the fee budget of the responsible manager liability insurance has been used up. “The pot is empty,” said Dierlamm. Against this background and “in view of the very significant amount of work involved in the main hearing,” Dierlamm and his law firm colleague Elena-Sabella Meier explained that he felt forced to resign from the mandate in a letter that they sent to the regional court on May 24th. “We would like to expressly point out that the termination of the mandate is based solely on economic considerations and not on the merits of the case itself,” it says. Braun therefore has three remaining in the fraud case, which has been going on for a year and a half before the fourth criminal division of the Munich Regional Court Defender. His previous second main defender, the Munich criminal lawyer Nico Werning, was appointed public defender. He will now take on the case with the previous public defenders Katrin Kalweit and Theres Kraußlach. One of the most renowned white-collar criminal defense lawyers in Germany One of the most spectacular scandals in German economic history is about alleged commercial gang fraud amounting to billions, about falsification of balance sheets, market manipulation and breach of trust in that digital start-up. Company that was once celebrated on the stock market as the German answer to Silicon Valley and had to file for bankruptcy in the summer of 2020. Braun and co-defendant Stephan von Erffa have always rejected all allegations. Dierlamm is considered one of the most renowned white-collar criminal defense lawyers in Germany; in recent years, one of his main focuses has been on representing defendants in cum-ex cases. It is not surprising that Dierlamm’s resignation in the Wirecard process would have a financial reason. As is common practice in Germany, the then Wirecard AG had taken out a manager’s liability policy for its board members with a consortium of D&O insurers, including Chubb. In the event of damage, this insurance also covers the legal costs of the managers; Therefore, the legal fees for Dierlamm and the other criminal defense lawyers as well as lawyers commissioned by Markus Braun were paid by the insurance companies. According to previous media reports, Chubb is involved in the D&O program as a so-called basic insurer with 15 million euros; other well-known players include Swiss Re and AGCS , the industrial insurer of the Allianz Group. Together, the other excess and reinsurers in the Wirecard scandal are expected to cover possible liability in the low three-digit million range.Braun’s disputes with the insurersIn the past, Braun had argued several times with insurers about the assumption of costs in court. In July 2023, he failed in his attempt to oblige Swiss Re to provide 10 million euros before the Düsseldorf regional court. At that time it was clear that the high legal fees could become a serious problem for Braun. Chubb had also refused to provide benefits and took his lawsuit to the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court – ultimately unsuccessfully. But the basic cover, from which Dierlamm’s fees in particular were paid as Braun’s criminal defense attorney over the past four years, has now been completely exhausted. More on the subject Co-defendant Erffa could face a prison sentence of six to eight years – provided he admits to the accusations made by the prosecution. This is what the presiding judge Markus Födisch said in the court hearing on Wednesday. This is a basis for discussion for a possible deal. Födisch clarified earlier statements and made it clear that the court and Erffa’s lawyers had not reached an agreement in a second background conversation.
Go to Source