211–220 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, that's an example that I'd consider specifically Bavarian, where CSU has been ruling for longer than the CCP has been ruling the PRC (no joke, if you ignore the wartime years the CCP already held power pre-PRC). On a national level things aren't looking quite as grim.
It happened in Frankfurt (Hessen), not Bavaria, you're probably referring to the Gustl Mollath case -- which is eerily similar. You're right its not a systemic issue I think (I hope), but it sheds light on the role of psychiatric "experts" in court proceedings and how corruptible they can be in some cases.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a small group of actors that benefits from these projects. The bribery part is hard to prove, I give you that, but it is very likely.
Bribery isn't "hard to prove" but instead there are no credible bribery accusations at all. Missmanagement in massive infrastructure projects are a much more reasonable explanation. It also makes a lot of sense because the actors are often state government officials that have never overseen a comparable project. Planning an airport or a new flagship concert hall is difficult. I agree that there were serious mistakes…
Fun fact, for a very long time German companies could declare bribes paid abroad in their taxes. Legally. Seems that a lot of people didn't get the memo that bribery was, indeed, illegal now.
Also, under Helmut Kohl, despite advice from experts to use fiber, the German government wired the whole country with copper instead because the ministry of infrastructure at the time had stocks in the copper business leaving the country's internet behind Ukraine or Belarus.[1] If you're on the DAX or a politician, you're untouchable in Germany and lots of people inside and outside of Germany have no idea of how insa…
Germany is notable for its lack of “retail” or low level corruption (cops don’t take bribes, you can get a building permit by following the rules, etc). One of the best in the world. But at the highest levels the opposite prevails, up there with France or even the US. Not Kleptocracy by any means, but bad by OECD standards. Because it’s so institutionalized it doesn’t really appear in those “corruption index” reports…
You don't know how good you have it. The low level corruption is the thing that eats away at your soul and poisons your day to day life.
High level corruption? Awful, but we have that too.
But having to bribe the nurse so that your grandma gets painkillers (or toilet paper!) in the hospital? Having to bribe the police officer to get your driver's license? Having to bribe the lady at the counter working for the City Hall, so that you can actually get papers you need this year, not 2 years from now?
That really messes with your head!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is a small group of actors that benefits from these projects. The bribery part is hard to prove, I give you that, but it is very likely.
Bribery isn't "hard to prove" but instead there are no credible bribery accusations at all. Missmanagement in massive infrastructure projects are a much more reasonable explanation. It also makes a lot of sense because the actors are often state government officials that have never overseen a comparable project. Planning an airport or a new flagship concert hall is difficult. I agree that there were serious mistakes…
Lest anyone think this is limited to Germany, consider the length of time it took for the US SEC to catch up with Bernie Madoff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madoff_investment_scandal#Prev... https://www.google.com/search?q=warnings+bernie+madoff
Additionally, Madoff's fraud was of a private investment fund only open to higher networth SEC-accredited investors (who presumably need less protection), whereas Wirecard was publicly traded on a major exchange, where anyone could buy shares of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you sure you understand it? Insider trading is not limited to employees, that's a common misconception. I don't know the German law on the matter, but I would wager that the prosecution was warranted, even when the court ends up determining that the charge doesn't hold.
You definitely do not understand the word, because it is not limited to people, the word "insider" is limited to the information: is the information publicly available? If the answer is "no", then it is "inside" information, and trading on it is "insider trading". These short sellers were trading on publicly available information. They just gave this information more publicity after getting their short positions, whi…
We're talking about positions that were opened right before the FT article was published. The FT article included allegations by an insider, it wasn't only public information.
Granted, there was also publicly available circumstantial evidence that things were fishy at Wirecard.
Either way, these short sellers weren't convicted, that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been investigated.
Talk about a US centric headline lol