New process for wine theft: ex-partner and friend in court

New process for wine theft: ex-partner and friend in court

A scandalous case again draws attention to court halls when two people had to answer to a lay judge. It is about a suspected stolen shop of expensive wines and stolen jewelry, which were sold without names via the local sales platform "Willkaden". The trial started on October 24, 2024 and, due to a calling of the Supreme Court, which ensured a repetition.

The wine thief, which was sentenced to a four -year prison sentence in March 2024, is still sitting in the judiciary. At the first negotiation in October 2023, his ex-partner and a friend were sentenced to the case for their involvement because they had posthumously supported him. At the current trial, both defendants assured their innocence, although there are clear evidence against them.

The role of the accused

A main allegation against the ex-partner and the friend of the wine thief is that they provided bank accounts and opened accounts for the wine thief accounts on "Willkfahrt". The friend, who sits as a defendant in the negotiation, said that he did not know that his account was used for criminal machinations. "I didn't think he was doing something bad with the account," he said.

In addition, he admitted that he had pledged jewelry that was stolen from an older lady from Neusiedl in the Dorotheum in Vienna for 1,100 euros. He then handed over the money to his friend. The ex-partner had also not been idle: she had opened a "willhaben" account for the wine thief and, in addition, when the police arrested the wine thief, contributed to escaping the digital traces of crime.

Although the ex-partner of the wine thief received a fine of 600 euros because she had taken the thief with her, the friend was acquitted in this process because the judge could not prove that he had deliberately provided his account details for the illegal activities. This strategy, in which the accused assert their innocence, is often used in such cases to take responsibility.

The wine thief himself commented on the negotiation, but wanted to say no further details about the accused and made use of his right to defeat. Despite the shocking circumstances, the court has not succeeded in finding conclusive evidence that clearly show the intent of the accused. The judge noticed that the plans of the jewelry was already time -barred, which also makes the situation easier for the accused.

The ongoing legal disputes throw a light on the challenges of the judiciary when it comes to pursuing and proving crime in the digital age. The reporting remains exciting for any other developments and details, so it remains to be seen how the situation around the go-to-platform sales of such offenses will develop. More information about this explosive case is available at www.bvz.at .