Acquittal for neighbor

Farmer allegedly defrauded neighbor of 178,000 euros

The case was heard at the Linz Regional Court(Bild: Constantin Handl, Krone KREATIV)

Testimony against testimony - this was the starting point of a trial at the Linz Regional Court. A pensioner (78) had given his neighbor (64) a bank power of attorney, which the latter was supposed to have used for his own purposes. Despite a seven-hour trial and eleven witnesses summoned, there was no evidence of guilt - acquittal. 

Actually, he should have taken over the farm - the contract had already been drawn up and maintenance work was underway. A farmer (78) from Kematen an der Krems had given his neighbor and planned successor (64) a notarized bank power of attorney for two of his accounts. However, the friendly relationship between the two broke down and the 78-year-old charged his neighbor with embezzlement.

178,000 euros loss
But instead of handling the money entrusted to him carefully and in the 78-year-old's best interests, the 64-year-old is accused of putting it in his own pocket. The total loss is said to be around 178,000 euros, for which the accused bought a motor mower and a high-pressure cleaner, among other things. The most expensive purchase by far was a wheel loader costing a whopping 80,000 euros - this was registered to the 64-year-old's wife's business.

Bank advisor intervened
It was a suspicious bank employee who got the ball rolling. He advised the 78-year-old to check his account transactions, whereupon he withdrew the power of attorney. On Thursday, the 64-year-old will stand trial for embezzlement at the Linz Regional Court.

Statement against statement
In principle, the farmer admits to the purchases. However, he claims that all purchases and withdrawals were agreed with the account holder and that the machines were intended for the 78-year-old's farm.

Eleven witnesses, eleven points of view
Because it was testimony against testimony after the first hearing in January, eleven witnesses were to bring clarity on Thursday. A gardener, a construction machinery salesman, two notaries, lawyers and their employees as well as a relative of the plaintiff presented their impressions. These varied greatly: from a "relationship like between father and son" to "It seemed to me that the senile plaintiff was taken advantage of by his manipulative neighbor".

Acquittal due to lack of evidence
If convicted, the 64-year-old was facing up to three years in prison. In the end, however, Ms. Rat and the jury saw only one possibility: acquittal due to lack of evidence. This is not yet legally binding, the public prosecutor's office made no statement.