As a young man, Alexander Falk was one of the richest Germans and a star of the "New Economy" - now he is likely to go to prison for the second time. On Wednesday, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the appeal by the Hamburg publisher heir against his conviction to four and a half years in prison. It has thus been legally established that Falk has set criminals on a business lawyer he hates - in order to attack and shoot him.

The story almost sounds like a movie. Falk (53 today) had successfully invested the money from the sale of his father's well-known city map publishing company in Internet companies. In the meantime he was on the Forbes list of the 100 richest Germans. Then the deep fall: In 2008, Falk was sentenced to four years in prison for attempted fraud - because he embellished the value of his company through bogus transactions and sold it at an inflated price.

Close range shot

As a result, Falk was faced with claims for damages in the millions. The later attacked lawyer had worked for the other side. When he was about to get into his car in front of his house in Frankfurt in February 2010, an unknown gunman shot him in the thigh at close range. There had been anonymous calls before, once the front door had been smashed in with a hammer.

The investigators grope in the dark for years - until 2017, a key witness appears who incriminates Falk. The man known to the police benefits from his statement, because the attack victim's former large law firm had offered a reward of 100,000 euros.

Falk's wife had testified in the trial at the Frankfurt district court that the family had been blackmailed by the man. In fact, a tape recording that was considered key evidence turns out to be partially tampered with. In its judgment of July 9, 2020, the regional court nevertheless came to the conclusion that Falk commissioned the crime from a pair of criminal brothers from Turkey - out of anger, revenge and offended honor.

Ominous SMS

An SMS that Falk received five days before the crime played an important role. The sender informs him that "grandma" will soon have her "deserved spa stay".

Falk himself had said at the beginning of the trial that he was in custody for an act that he did not commit. "Ordering a cowardly attack goes against everything that's important to me, my upbringing, my values, my sportsmanship." He only gave the order to obtain data from the lawyer or other members of the office in order to be able to prove his innocence.

He had not convinced the Frankfurt judges. And even the top criminal judges in Karlsruhe see no legal error.

Falk's defense attorneys had primarily complained that their client had ended up being convicted of a different crime than the one originally charged. Initially, the public prosecutor had accused him of incitement to murder. In the end, he was convicted of inciting dangerous bodily harm. If it were a completely different event, that would be a procedural obstacle.

Against bodily integrity

However, the BGH judges did not share these concerns. In both variants, the aim was to eliminate the victim as an opponent in the process, said Senate Chairman Ulrich Franke at the half-hour pronouncement of the verdict, who Falk stayed away from. And both crimes were against bodily integrity.

In addition, Falk's lawyers complained that the two Turkish brothers, who are now in their home country, were not questioned by the district court via video link as requested. Here, the BGH questioned the reasoning of the Frankfurt judges. Franke said, however, that it can be assumed that this would not have changed the verdict. The brothers didn't want to be questioned - and as co-suspects probably didn't say much either.

Falk's lawyer Björn Gercke criticized that. "No one can really rule out the possibility that the alleged contractors would not have been acquitted," he said. The verdict is now "only accessible for a review of any violation of constitutional law or, if applicable, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)".

However, filing a constitutional complaint would not change the legal force. Falk had been in custody for 22 months. This time will count towards the prison sentence. Suspension of the remainder of the prison sentence is normally only possible after two-thirds of the sentence has been served - in this case around 36 months. It can therefore be assumed that Falk, who has been free since the Frankfurt verdict, will soon have to go back to prison.