La Vie en Wirecard
About strong Spanish financial analyses and weak French allegations
May 2, 2024
1715923067
Dark Mode Latest edits
Witness hearing of the former accounting employee Maria Lacruz-Muniz and the Executive Board Advisor Frederic Huber on May 2, 2024.
The facts listed here do not guarantee a complete record of the witness hearing, they serve to provide a
Right at the beginning, the main hearing is interrupted due to a motion by the defense of Oliver Bellenhaus. The main judges leave the courtroom with Oliver Bellenhaus' defense. After a few minutes, the judges return and declare that a request for early questioning at the beginning of next week of the Wirecard whistleblower Pav Gill, who is currently in Germany for a presentation, will be rejected.
Reference is made to the scheduling of Pav Gill's hearing in August 2024. Oliver Bellenhaus then has a brief, private conversation with the judge. Only then is witness Maria Lacruz-Muniz sworn in and questioned.
Reference is made to the scheduling of Pav Gill's hearing in August 2024. Oliver Bellenhaus then has a brief, private conversation with the judge. Only then is witness Maria Lacruz-Muniz sworn in and questioned.
Born in the beautiful northern Spanish city of Santander, Maria Lacruz-Muniz was employed in held a key position within Wirecard's accounting Accounting department. As the link between the legal department and the accounting department, she was largely responsible for assessing the impact of contracts and their amendments on accounting.
the accounting of the AG.
After several questions, she is confronted with the backdating of contracts with the third-party partner PayEasy. With a clear Spanish accent, she explains in otherwise very good German that these issues were sometimes "ssslampick " in the contracts. She is asked about several third-party partner contracts from 2020. Where did you get information about changes to contracts? Answer: "Mostly from Oliver Bellenhaus".
After several questions, she is confronted with the backdating of contracts with the third-party partner PayEasy. With a clear Spanish accent, she explains in otherwise very good German that these issues were sometimes "ssslampick " in the contracts. She is asked about several third-party partner contracts from 2020. Where did you get information about changes to contracts? Answer: "Mostly from Oliver Bellenhaus".
She is confronted by the judge with her statements at the interrogation by the public prosecutor's office in 2020/21, she had said there that TPA invoices were posted in the consoiding tool and not in billing, what would that mean? She answered calmly and consistently competently that this was with regard to the G V invoice, data on acquirers often came in late, these were entered in software tools, which were referred to as consolidation tools.
She was not directly involved in billing processes, but was present in larger meetings where it was often necessary to "wait for figures". Mr. von Erffa also checked figures, she was often in consultation with him.
She was not directly involved in billing processes, but was present in larger meetings where it was often necessary to "wait for figures". Mr. von Erffa also checked figures, she was often in consultation with him.
The judge said that Mr. von Erffa had said that Oliver Bellenhaus had a whole team under him, whether she could confirm this. Quite right, she said, she had also noticed that it was not possible for the quality control of contracts to be carried out by the accounting department, as this was ultimately the task of the legal department.
Quarterly reports were published and preliminary quarterly reports, what was the difference? Lacruz-Muniz reports that figures had to be compiled in various departments, which naturally took a little longer for some, which is why there were preliminary reports. Once all the figures and data had been collated, the final quarterly report was produced and signed.
Quarterly reports were published and preliminary quarterly reports, what was the difference? Lacruz-Muniz reports that figures had to be compiled in various departments, which naturally took a little longer for some, which is why there were preliminary reports. Once all the figures and data had been collated, the final quarterly report was produced and signed.
She is asked whether the figures of the TPA partners were already available in the preliminary reports. Mostly yes, she replies. The judge thinks that Mr. Franke was using Excel lists without Mr. von Erffa with figures on Dr. von Erffa. Braun, whether she knew what these figures were. She had no knowledge of this.
Did she know about fiduciary accounts and that new fiduciaries were set up for third-party partners? Yes, this generally happened because profits could be accounted for differently. Trust accounts were reported as cash, not unlike a separate bank account. You didn't have to show whether there was money in the bank. Changes to trust accounts usually occurred, as she recalls, because contracts with acquirers were changed.
Did she know about fiduciary accounts and that new fiduciaries were set up for third-party partners? Yes, this generally happened because profits could be accounted for differently. Trust accounts were reported as cash, not unlike a separate bank account. You didn't have to show whether there was money in the bank. Changes to trust accounts usually occurred, as she recalls, because contracts with acquirers were changed.
The judge asks the balance sheet expert whether there were security mechanisms for these trust accounts, as you don't want the person who provides security to have unrestricted access to the accounts. Yes, there were, replied Maria Lacruz-Muniz, Wirecard could not simply make an online transfer from these trust accounts, the trustee had to be approached. Furthermore, amounts that were in dispute were blocked, Wirecard only had access to amounts that were not blocked due to any circumstances of a merchant.
The witness allegedly said in her testimony a few years ago that "escrow accounts were also used for other business models". After some thought, she credibly replied that she could not remember anything like that.
The witness allegedly said in her testimony a few years ago that "escrow accounts were also used for other business models". After some thought, she credibly replied that she could not remember anything like that.
She is confronted by the judge in an email dated August 1, 2018 regarding a software purchase of 3 million euros by TPA Senjo, the buyer was Card Systems Middle East. Whether she was aware that this software had been resold to Ruprecht von Al-Alam, 7.6 million euros, there were various bookings. The judge shows further emails with facts that lie beyond the responsibility of the witness.
One of these conversations states: "The CSME wants an outright 10 million euros for software that we bought from Al-Alam for 7 million". Von Erffa had advocated the sale of the software to WUKI for reasons that the judge omitted, and Kai-Oliver Zitzmann had been involved in this.
One of these conversations states: "The CSME wants an outright 10 million euros for software that we bought from Al-Alam for 7 million". Von Erffa had advocated the sale of the software to WUKI for reasons that the judge omitted, and Kai-Oliver Zitzmann had been involved in this.
With regard to the Softbank deal, she had involved a professor from the university and expert opinions had been requested. The judge shows how the witness disagreed with Dagmar Schneider and others in an email. The witness explains that she no longer knows exactly why there was this disagreement; it was similar with regard to a telephone conversation with Ms. Häuser-Axner from 4 years ago mentioned by the judge. Behaviors of Mr. von Erffa were discussed, the witness had largely no conspicuous experiences with von Erffa.
The questioning of Maria Lacruz-Muniz is interrupted for the lunch break and continued in the afternoon. For scheduling and cost reasons, the Executive Board Advisor Frederic Huber, for whom a French translator has been appointed within a certain time frame, is questioned first. Huber, who was born in France and is 39 years old, was assigned to Susanne Steidl, VP for IT Affairs, who appointed Huber as an internal consultant for various reporting tasks. He joined Wirecard at the beginning of January 2020, having previously worked at Intel in Munich in a similar position. He was with Wirecard for a total of 8 months until August 2020.
Huber's activities under and for Ms. Steidl had several aspects, he coordinated various VP matters, he forwarded information to Steidl. In total, he had to monitor 30 to 40 major programs/projects under Ms. Steidl's responsibility. His job was to monitor, track and report on these. Did he have anything to do with Merchant Cash Advance (MCA) or Payment Receivable Finance? Answer: "No, nothing at all". He had only heard about the third-party partners Senjo, Al-Alam and PayEasy from the press.
In his interrogation by the public prosecutor's office a few years ago, Frerdic Huber testified, among other things, that "the people were rather unreliable, i.e. the teams under Ms. Steidl". He continued: "Steidl was more of a free spirit and trusted few people. The only person she trusted was Carmen Schöffthaler, she worked with her for a long time". Basically, she had little trust within the teams; in Huber's opinion, there were "rather unreliable people". This says nothing about their competence; they were often unable to carry out their roles and were therefore overwhelmed. Steidl had a lot of trust in Sebastian Krahe, less so in Sandra Meermann-Hying, according to Huber.
The judge asks some questions regarding a 'Product Tech Monthly Overview', such reports were regularly prepared by Huber. The transaction volumes are determined, which are correct after checking the acquiring/issuing. The transactions of Wirecard Bank were not included. Huber believes that, roughly speaking, there were two different IT systems at Wirecard. He had never really compared "how the figures in our report corresponded with information from the press". For Steidl, it was important to know which sales figures she was responsible for. Huber had not been commissioned by her to monitor these for the Group as a whole.
During Huber's work, Steidl was particularly busy uniting various IT platforms. When a thunderstorm is heard in the underground court bunker, Oliver Bellenhaus' lawyer intervenes and asks if the windows can be closed and the ventilation turned up a little. Huber goes on to explain that several IT platforms were merged between 2016 and 2020 due to various acquisitions in previous years. The reporting was adjusted accordingly.
The judge went on to ask Huber whether he had known that the Executive Board was to be restructured with a CSO and CCO. He had only found out about this through several conversations with interim CEO James Freis. The judge throws a plan of the supervisory board on the projector, in which the future responsibilities for a CSO and CCO position are listed. According to this plan, Jan Marsalek was to retain the responsibilities for the third-party partners, but was to be more or less relieved of all other functions. Steidl never mentioned any of this to Huber.
He had seen von Erffa around ten times in total. The judge confronted Huber with his statements to the public prosecutor's office. There he had described von Erffa as, quote, "choleric and sexist". Could he explain what exactly he meant by that? Huber is visibly embarrassed by this statement and immediately explains that he "would like to make it clear that he lost his job at Wirecard at the time of the statement, je suis désolé",he was upset at the time.
The judge goes on to ask whether von Erffa was choleric and sexist or not. Huber replies: "Not with me, I had a lot of discussions with others during the insolvency period and commented on press articles". He goes on to say that his statements to the public prosecutor's office at the time should therefore be seen in this context.
The judge goes on to ask whether von Erffa was choleric and sexist or not. Huber replies: "Not with me, I had a lot of discussions with others during the insolvency period and commented on press articles". He goes on to say that his statements to the public prosecutor's office at the time should therefore be seen in this context.
The judge remains adamant as to whether he had any personal experiences with von Erffa's allegedly choleric and sexist behavior. Huber ponders longer, saying that he had had conversations with rather calmer people from the financial sector who had told him about it. He had not personally had any such experiences with von Erffa. The judge goes on to ask that something must have happened, why was von Erffa described as 'sexist'?
Huber says that he no longer remembers exactly, that it surprises him today to have put something like that on paper back then. The judge goes on to quote from Huber's written interrogation, according to which von Erffa "was incompetent" and had a "bad reputation". Huber now suddenly says: "Yes".
Huber says that he no longer remembers exactly, that it surprises him today to have put something like that on paper back then. The judge goes on to quote from Huber's written interrogation, according to which von Erffa "was incompetent" and had a "bad reputation". Huber now suddenly says: "Yes".
Frederic Huber is asked how von Erffa's alleged incompetence had manifested itself, had specialist topics been discussed? Huber says that he was not directly involved in financial matters, but that he sometimes took part in meetings with external advisors and was surprised at the points von Erffa raised. These were "not the points that should be the most important at this level of competence".
Could he give an example? Huber said that when it came to allocating resources within a team, for example. If several people were to join, certain financial matters relating to the addition of the new consultants were important. That had to be the top priority. Steidl's teams were sometimes large. He once asked von Erffa about this. In corporate groups, this was actually formulated very precisely in terms of what needed to be done in this regard. In his opinion, Huber was unable to ascertain this, which is why he felt that von Erffa "lacked competence".
Could he give an example? Huber said that when it came to allocating resources within a team, for example. If several people were to join, certain financial matters relating to the addition of the new consultants were important. That had to be the top priority. Steidl's teams were sometimes large. He once asked von Erffa about this. In corporate groups, this was actually formulated very precisely in terms of what needed to be done in this regard. In his opinion, Huber was unable to ascertain this, which is why he felt that von Erffa "lacked competence".
Huber is finally questioned by the judge about the dynamics of the Board of Directors. Three of them had their offices on the same floor, Steidl, the CFO and the CEO communicated very effectively. Marsalek was in the building next door. Huber had seen him perhaps three times in total during his time at Wirecard.
Von Erffa's lawyer then takes over the questioning and Huber is questioned again about his assessment of a "choleric" von Erffa. Huber now says that he is "not accusing him of anything personally, but that this must be seen in context". Von Erffa went on to ask whether Huber knew about the reorganization of the billing system, saying that the aim was to "standardize the IT systems". Huber confirmed this.
He is further questioned about another Executive Advisor named Engelsberger, who sat next to him in the office for a short time and prepared reports for the CEO. Finally, Dr. Braun asks whether Huber remembers the town hall meeting on the third-party partner business in May 2020(?). He confirmed that there had been such a meeting, where Ms. Steidl had spoken about the TPA business. Huber is then unsworn, he and his French translator leave the courtroom.
He is further questioned about another Executive Advisor named Engelsberger, who sat next to him in the office for a short time and prepared reports for the CEO. Finally, Dr. Braun asks whether Huber remembers the town hall meeting on the third-party partner business in May 2020(?). He confirmed that there had been such a meeting, where Ms. Steidl had spoken about the TPA business. Huber is then unsworn, he and his French translator leave the courtroom.
Finance employee Maria Lacruz-Muniz is then brought back into the courtroom and questioned further. She is questioned further about backdating in contracts and repeatedly states that she was not responsible for drawing up contracts. If she had discovered such dating discrepancies in contracts, she had reported them. With regard to the TPA business, she had spoken to von Erffa, Mr. Zitzmann and a Diana.
She had also learned that some TPAs had received risk revaluations. Lacruz is further questioned about processes and communication channels regarding her balance sheet analyses; she mostly answers clearly and always in clear differentiation between her activities and those of others.
She had also learned that some TPAs had received risk revaluations. Lacruz is further questioned about processes and communication channels regarding her balance sheet analyses; she mostly answers clearly and always in clear differentiation between her activities and those of others.
She is further questioned by Dr. Braun regarding rating improvements, for PayEasy the 'Probablity of Default' was 4.5% as of January 1, 2018, as of December 31, 2018 it was 2.82%. How do you assess the rating of 2.82%, good or bad? Lacruz thinks most private individuals have a better check. The witness is unsworn at 16:35.
Finally, there is a brief discussion between the judge and Dr. Braun's defense. The judge announces that he had spoken briefly with lawyer Dierlamm a few days ago, the judge looks at Dr. Braun and asks him, quote, "whether you have a lawyer at all or not".
Finally, there is a brief discussion between the judge and Dr. Braun's defense. The judge announces that he had spoken briefly with lawyer Dierlamm a few days ago, the judge looks at Dr. Braun and asks him, quote, "whether you have a lawyer at all or not".
Lawyer Krausslach, who has been sitting next to Dr. Braun the whole time and has been asking questions herself, takes the microphone and says, "Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm sitting here defending Dr. Braun". The judge said that he wanted to know when and whether Mr. Dierlamm and his colleague Ms. Meyer would be back; Dierlamm had promised to call him these days to clarify this. Lawyer Krausslach says, "Mr. Dierlamm will contact you tomorrow morning". The judge replies that he will wait until tomorrow and then act.
Von Erffa's lawyer also requests that the public be excluded from a report by an expert appointed next Monday; a "specialist in autism" has been summoned and will give his assessment. The judge reluctantly accepts the request. The hearing is then concluded.
Von Erffa's lawyer also requests that the public be excluded from a report by an expert appointed next Monday; a "specialist in autism" has been summoned and will give his assessment. The judge reluctantly accepts the request. The hearing is then concluded.
Leave a comment:
Send
Send
Recommended:
Wirecard Untangled
About unsolved issues in Germany´s master finance scandal
Mount Interim
About a Wirecard interim-CEO on a Swiss rose mountain
Harvesting Wirecard
About Swiss roses and Wirecard bears
The PayLondon Group
About bears from London and Wirecard targetings
Mount Acronis
About a Swiss IT sponsor and Wirecard entanglements
Magic Pav
About a Wirecard whistleblower and magic law firms
The Trial
About a Wirecard release of prisoner and Franz Kafka's unfinished works
The Grand Orchestra
About Wirecard's share price and dolphins against sharks
Mount Wirecard
About Swiss Wirecard entanglements and the remains of Crypto AG
Wirecard Court Halftime
About seven months in Munich Stadelheim and the miracle of Bern
Pandora's Box
About Wirecard's IT Architectures
The Third Man
About Wirecard's interim CEO James Freis and nice shoes
Deflective Attorneys
About a five hours Wirecard indictment
Bavariacard
About a Germanic Wirecard Poker
A Munich Fraud
Wirecard and Munich's Public Prosecutor's Office
Royal Courts of Wirecard
About a Wirecard Lawsuit and Quantum Physics
Brilliant Consultants
About Wirecard's financial auditors and the chess game
Back To The Wirecard
About the roots of the insolvent German payment provider
