5 Years Since Kurz's Resignation

The Poll Scandal: Long Investigations, No Breakthrough

Five years after his resignation, Sebastian Kurz is still listed as a suspect.(Bild: Krone-Collage/Imre Antal, APA/BARBARA LORENCZ)

Three days after the raids at Ballhausplatz on October 6, 2021, Sebastian Kurz resigned as chancellor. Five years and an evaluation report later, one question looms large: Are the WKStA’s allegations coming to nothing?

It has been five years since investigators from the Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Affairs and Corruption (WKStA) raided the Federal Chancellery, the Ministry of Finance, and the ÖVP party headquarters. Three days after the large-scale raid, Sebastian Kurz resigned after a total of 1,169 days as chancellor.

Five years and a final acquittal in the trial for perjury later, Sebastian Kurz—who has since become a father twice—is still under investigation in the poll-rigging scandal. The case comprises 6,000 file sections.

On whose behalf was Thomas Schmid acting?
However, aside from the testimony of “key witness” Thomas Schmid, the time-consuming investigations appear not to have yet led the corruption investigators to the success they had hoped for.

The analysis of digital data takes an enormous amount of time. The length of the investigation is unreasonable for the accused.

Rechtsanwalt  Johannes Zink

Bild: hba

Even the 1,435-page analysis report on the so-called “Beinschab tool,” published at the end of July 2026, apparently provided no evidence that Thomas Schmid acted on behalf of Sebastian Kurz. Especially since the mastermind behind the Beinschab tool worked for Finance Minister Hans Jörg Schelling in 2016.

Call for More Staff 
For attorney Johannes Zink, such a lengthy duration of proceedings is unreasonable for the accused: “The analysis of digital data takes an enormous amount of time,” Zink argues, calling for better staffing of the judiciary and absolute statutes of limitations for investigations. AI could also have accelerated proceedings long ago.

The WKStA justifies the delay by citing the preliminary review proceedings—in which a judge decides which data is relevant and may be handed over to the WKStA. A second report is nearing completion.