14/05/2013
NEWS STORY
 |
Other than tyres, this is the question on the lips of paddock-dwellers during last weekend's Spanish Grand Prix. As one very well-known name put it to Pitpass' business editor Christian Sylt, "the rumour here is Bernie has got a lot of explaining to do in the next few months because Gribkowsky has dropped his appeal."
In June 2012 a Munich court sentenced Gerhard Gribkowsky to eight-and-a-half years in prison for receiving a £28.6m ($44m) bribe from Bernie Ecclestone - seen here trying out his extradition compound shoes - and his family trust in return for allegedly steering the sale of BayernLB's stake in F1 to current owner CVC in 2006.
German prosecutors believe that Ecclestone wanted CVC to take over F1 because it had agreed to retain him as the boss of the sport. In contrast, Ecclestone says that Gribkowsky threatened to make false allegations about his tax affairs if the £28.6m was not paid.
For the past two years the Munich prosecutor has been investigating Ecclestone and on Monday it confirmed that "the investigation against Mr. Ecclestone has been completed." It follows Gribkowsky dropping his appeal of the judgement against him which was not surprising as he testified in court last year that he was indeed bribed by Ecclestone.
The confession was seen as a move to reduce his sentence because he feared that the court was going to find him guilty anyway. In fact, it led to him being found guilty and German media recently reported that the Ecclestone will be imminently charged with paying the bribe to Gribkowsky. On Sunday Pitpass explained what could be in store if the case comes to trial.
As we pointed out, if the prosecutors bring Ecclestone to court for paying a bribe to Gribkowsky he will give them the biggest battle they have ever seen. He already has one of Germany's top lawyers working for him and he hasn't even been charged with any wrongdoing. If Ecclestone's lawyers prove in court that in fact he is innocent of paying a bribe to Gribkowsky then that raises the serious question of why the banker was found guilty of receiving one. It could cause the prosecutors severe embarrassment, possibly expose them to a damages suit from Gribkowsky and would reduce faith in the German legal system.
This situation could put the prosecutors in somewhat of a Catch 22. The reason for this is that if they don't charge Ecclestone it could equally reduce faith in the German legal system. It could be claimed that Ecclestone needs to be charged with paying the alleged bribe because Gribkowsky was charged with receiving it. So how could the prosecutors escape this Catch 22? One possible answer comes from an article on Monday in weekly news magazine Spiegel one of the most credible publications in Germany.
The author of the Spiegel report was Dinah Deckstein, who has proven herself to be probably the most knowledgeable and reliable reporter on the Gribkowsky case. Spiegel has a circulation of over one million and reportedly employs 80 fact checkers so it is a very credible source.
Deckstein's article points out that charging someone in Germany does not automatically mean there will be a court case and they will go to trial as it does in England. Instead, the first phase of a German criminal prosecution is pre-trial investigation to determine if there are grounds for a formal indictment. In Ecclestone's case, the investigation has now been completed and, according to the German media, there will indeed be a formal indictment. The second phase of a German criminal prosecution is that the indictment is transferred to the appropriate German court, where the presiding judge decides if the evidence warrants a trial.
Obviously, if the case goes to trial then there could be a question mark over Ecclestone's future as F1's boss because the outcome will decide whether he is innocent or guilty. If he is found guilty and imprisoned then he couldn't run F1 as he admitted to Sylt late last year. However, if it doesn't go to trial then he will be in the clear and Deckstein has cast doubt on whether the case will ever come before court.
The key point to remember is that Ecclestone was not a defendant in the case against Gribkowsky, he was merely a witness. The consequence of this is that he hasn't had a chance to present his case against the court's ruling. Gribkowsky was of course a defendant and the moment that he confessed to being bribed the court had pretty much no choice but to find him guilty.
Gribkowsky confessed to receiving a bribe from Ecclestone in return for agreeing to sell BayernLB's stake in F1 to CVC. Accordingly, he would be the star witness in the prosecutors' case against Ecclestone and this could be the core of their problem.
Firstly, Ecclestone's lawyers would most probably say that the reason Gribkowsky gave the confession was to reduce his sentence, not because it is a true version of events. Then it is likely they would point out that Ecclestone's explanation for the payment fits all the facts just as much as the theory that the money was a bribe. In fact, as Pitpass pointed out on Sunday, there may well be evidence waiting in the wings which proves Ecclestone's point without much doubt.
However, perhaps ironically, the clincher for Ecclestone's lawyers may be the fact that Gribkowsky has been convicted. If the prosecutors' case revolves around Gribkowsky's testimony then it would amount to little more than his word against Ecclestone's. Given that Gribkowsky has been found guilty of a crime then he could be considered a discredited witness.
As Deckstein writes: "Whether it actually comes to court is an open question. First of all the Munich court has to permit the indictment to go to trial and it could doubt Gribkowsky's credibility as a witness against Ecclestone."
The upshot is that this situation presents the prosecutors with a way to escape the Catch 22 described above. Firstly, it allows them to charge Ecclestone, which reflects the fact that they charged Gribkowsky. Secondly, if the court decides not to bring the charges to trial then there is no risk that it will result in an innocent verdict which would call into question the fact that Gribkowsky was found guilty. It is also worth pointing out that, under German law, the prosecutors could drop the proceedings in exchange for a ‘non penal payment' which would allow them to charge Ecclestone without the risk to either side of the case coming to court.
It is unclear what action the prosecutors will take but if testimony from Gribkowsky is indeed the core of their evidence against Ecclestone then it seems likely the outcome will be that charges are filed against him but the case doesn't come to court. It all depends on what evidence they have found against Ecclestone and how strong it is.
Who knows what the prosecutors may have found but you would have thought that if they had discovered irrefutable evidence against Ecclestone over the past two years they would have already charged him. In contrast, they arrested Gribkowsky just seven days after he first met the prosecutors on 29 December 2010 to explain why Ecclestone paid him. The difference in the way they have acted towards Gribkowsky and Ecclestone could well prove telling.