IN MATTERS OF THE ANTI MONEY LAUNDERING ACT AND ACTORS ON BEHALF OF THE HONOR OF THE JUDICIARY

Artwork by Krittika, VOICES by Krittika

When the tax advisor prepared the business analysis of the Start-up emile Gesellschaft für kindgerechte Krankheitsaufklärung mbH, discrepancies arose for the first time with regard to the payment of the capital stock, which prompted me to clarify and reassess the facts surrounding the payment of the capital stock. On January 29, 2021 and February 2, 2021, the board of Deutsche Bank was informed of the breach of trust and asked to comment on discrepancies relating to account management, commission payments, and various stock capital payments.

I questioned the statement of accounts and list of liabilities prepared by the tax advisor immediately after it was drawn up, as the liabilities shown in the balance sheet did not correspond to the contracts concluded with me and the applicable tax laws. In the list of accounts dated April 2, 2021 the tax advisor posted the payments received on August 23 and August 26, 2019, with the purpose of use “capital stock” in the amount of €19.500,00 + remainder in the amount of €5.500,00 as a KfW loan. The company’s liabilities to the start-up consultant under the loan agreement were recorded as subscribed equity.

Thanks to the professionalism of the tax advisor, I was informed that the public prosecutor’s office would not believe me anyway in order to clarify the facts of the case.

After the start-up’s capital stock had already been paid into the Deutsche Bank account in July 2019 of the financial resources of the start-up consultant, further payments of €19.500,00 and €5.500,00 were made to the company’s business account, for which I was granted sole power of disposal at the end of August 2019, with the description “capital stock and remainder.”

Since the capital stock of €25.000,00 had already been paid in in July 2019 by the start-up consultant the origin of the capital stock had to be disputed. I reported the matter to BaFin in May 2021. In December 2021 I reported the corresponding discrepancy regarding the origin of the capital stock to the transparency register.

The information and documents required for the purpose of verification and clarification pursuant to Section 23a (3) GwG were provided by me to the german transparency registry and transmitted pursuant to Section 19 (1) GwG. The report was personally handed over to the managing director of Bundesanzeiger Verlag GmbH, Amsterdamer Straße 192, 50735 Cologne, Germany by me with a confirmation of receipt. Discrepancies arose between the statements of Deutsche Bank Privat- und Firmenkundenbank AG and the start-up consultant who provided the capital stock. No clarification could be obtained in this regard, so I reported the matter to the transparency register.

In an email dated December 11, 2020 the start-up advisor responded to my inquiry regarding the origin of the capital stock payment as follows:

“I provided you with the loan in cash in the presence of Deutsche Bank employees. The payment was made from my personal account at Deutsche Bank. You signed the attached agreement and later the loan agreement accordingly. The origin of my money is none of your lawyer’s business.”

After reporting discrepancies to the transparency register and the police under the anti-money laundering law act, I received no information about the proceedings, no summons from the police, but a letter from the BaFin.

The received statement was published here.

[embed]Reporting to the #BaFin, the highest financial supervising authority in Germany. In 2021 I reported to BaFin, the highest financial supervising authority in Germany. In my e-mail I presented the facts…medium.com

Parallel to the BaFin report and the German transparency register, I repeatedly requested Deutsche Bank AG to provide complete information and submit missing account statements — without success until today.

To my surprise, however, the statement and response to my report to BaFin referred to a different matter and not to my report on the start-up emile Gesellschaft für kindgerechte Krankheitsaufklärung mbH, but to emile GmbH. In 2019, however, I only had one project notarized, submitted one loan application for the needed KfW loan, and opened a bank account at Deutsche Bank in Düsseldorf. For a GmbH with the name emile Gesellschaft für kindgerechte Krankheitsaufklärung mbH and not for a company named emile GmbH.

THE LAWSUIT ABOUT THE ECONOMICALLY ENTITLED

In 2021, the start-up consultant filed a lawsuit against me as a private individual at the Düsseldorf Regional Court for a repayment claim in the amount of €25.000,00 even though there was a contractual agreement regarding the payment of share capital in a written agreement dated December 28, 2019, between the start-up consultant and emile Gesellschaft für kindgerechte Krankheitsaufklärung mbH. However, this agreement was not found in the court files and mentioned in the statement of claim submitted by his legal representative.

As the origin of the capital stock remains unclear, it was not possible to determine the correct representative/person responsible in legal matters, nor was it possible to forward the statement of claim in a lawful manner. The regional court was informed of these events.

The documents submitted to the Düsseldorf Regional Court by the legal representatives of the opposite side in the proceedings concerning Deutsche Bank AG and the payment of capital stock presented different circumstances and facts. In addition, documents relating to the loans contractually agreed with KfW have not been made transparent to the court and kept withheld.

In all legal cases of the past years brought-up against the Start-up and me as an individual, fraud and forgery is proven within the claim enforcement, legal proceedings and the highly sensible act of the delivery of court correspondence.

The claims asserted against me never existed, and not only I, but also courts were deceived for the purpose of financial abuse. I was wondering if lawyers receive a hazard pay bonus when they cheat the courts as not only my tormentors profited, but also law firms, banks, notaries, and tax advisors who actively enriched themselves at my expense.

There are indications of a violation of the attorney’s duty of truthfulness (Section 43a (3) BRAO) and of aiding and abetting fraud before the Düsseldorf Regional Court in the proceedings with the file numbers 40 O 20/22, Ref: 8 O 70/22 (Deutsche Bank AG) and the facts of the share capital payment in the proceedings with the file number 11 O 137/21, which can be proven to derive from the statement of claim by the legal representatives.

Numerous professionals did attend in this scam, either unconsciously or with the goal of aiding financial crimes and acts against humanity. All of them enriched themselves, all of them earned and nobody stepped in or intervened upon becoming aware of the abuse, the crime and deprivation of my liberty.

The installation and establishment of a dependency relationship as conservatorship or an unwanted power of attorney is only one instrument. Carefully prepared, used with precision and held by force in the aim of deprivation of liberty. A human rights violation executed by highly respected professionals.

The legal proceedings of the past years in my case, executed by various law firms demonstrate a systematic process of asset siphoning and concealment, supporting white-collar crime and human trafficking. All those involved professionals profited from a huge fraud and not a success story.

They show that the dignity of a human being, our constitution, human rights and the highest authority in our country — our courts — are being trampled, disrespected, not taken seriously and lost their value through greed.

Artwork by Krittika, VOICES by Krittika

In conclusion, I would like to state that the professionals involved have never taken any steps towards me or supported the investigation of the facts, not even when they were aware of the unique abuse and fraud they were entangled in — consciously or unconsciously.