Wöginger Diversion: OStA Vienna with Directive

This was confirmed by the Office of the Public Prosecutor (OstA) Vienna on Thursday. The conditions for terminating the criminal proceedings through a diversion are not met. General preventive aspects also argue against it, according to the reasoning.

The realization of an offense with a penalty range of up to five years imprisonment signals "a high degree of criminal energy as well as a significant social disturbance value and thus an increased degree of wrongdoing," explained the Office of the Public Prosecutor in a release. Furthermore, the disvalue of action and attitude in all three defendants "reaches an extent that is to be judged as striking and unusual," "so that overall, severe guilt is to be assumed." The behavior of the defendants has also shaken the trust in state institutions and in the actions of the authorities, which is why general preventive aspects also argue against a diversionary approach.

"We continue to stand united behind August Wöginger"

The ÖVP stated on Thursday in a statement that they acknowledge the appeal process. The ball is now in the court of the Higher Regional Court of Linz. This court must decide on the complaint. "We assume that the diversion will be confirmed," they expressed confidently. "We continue to stand united behind August Wöginger," emphasized the chancellor's party.

The Economic and Corruption Prosecutor's Office (WKStA) had referred to an "absolute borderline case" for the application of a diversion during the main hearing, but ultimately agreed to it. It was agreed that Wöginger would pay a fine of 44,000 euros and the two co-defendants 22,000 euros and 17,000 euros respectively.

In the "Postenschacher" case, it concerns the appointment of a board position in the tax office for Braunau, Ried, and Schärding in 2017. Wöginger, already a member of the National Council at the time, intervened in advance with the former Secretary General in the Ministry of Finance, Thomas Schmid, for a party friend. This friend received the position, while a better-qualified competitor did not get the chance. The officials, in turn, are said to have ranked the candidate first in the evaluation commission for party-political reasons.

(APA/Red)

This article has been automatically translated, read the original article here.