Case 23
| Case Number | 23 |
| Charge | Fraud |
| Defense Attorney Present | Yes |
| Interpreter Present | Yes |
| Racialized Person | Yes |
| Outcome | Fine |
A woman comes to Germany for health treatment, her family collecting thousands of euros to prepay costs and secure a visa. A federal agency accuses her of forging identity documents. Despite the prosecution admitting lack of evidence for intentional deception and requesting acquittal, the court sentences her to a harsh fine, jeopardizing both her stay in Germany and her health.
The judge openly and wrongly assumes the woman to have immigrated illegally, which speaks to the deeply engrained nature of racist prejudice in Germany and its punishment system. Clearly, this prejudice affects how he approaches the case: Even the lack of evidence conceded by the prosecutor does not sway the judge and the defendant’s medical situation appears to play no role in his assessment. Moreover, the case shows how courts act as a mechanism for migration control: by imposing criminal penalties, they create additional barriers for migrants and reinforce the precarity of their legal status in the country, acting as deterrence.
The defendant enters the courtroom accompanied by her lawyer and an interpreter. During the hearing we learn that she had come to Germany about two years prior to the trial to receive essential health treatment after unsuccessful attempts in her home country. Her family had collected thousands of euros to cover her treatment costs upfront, allowing her to obtain a visa.
The prosecution accuses her of forging an identity document and using it to present a false identity to a federal ministry. The defendant’s lawyer explains the circumstances of her entry into Germany and how she obtained the document, which a forensic report identified as forged. The lawyer states that the embassy in her home country recognized the document, giving the woman no reason to believe it might be forged.
The judge expresses doubt about this account, incorrectly assuming her visa application had been rejected. The lawyer corrects him, stating that the application was approved on medical grounds.
Both the prosecution and defense plead for an acquittal, but the judge insists that the forgery is proven and that he has no doubt about the defendant’s intent to deceive. The lawyer angrily declares he will appeal the decision.
Cases from our archive
Case 28
A woman is sentenced to probation by summary proceeding, which a court-appointed attorney appealed. At trial, her lawyer is not present and she has to navigate her case without proper interpretation. The judge urges her to revoke the appeal, arguing that she has already received a lenient punishment for possession of a weapon banned in Germany. She judges her harshly based on her association with “the wrong crowd” and urges her to set a better example for her child.
Case 27
Shortly after a wave of populist outrage over a knife attack, a man convicted of attempted assault with a weapon based on little evidence appeals his sentence. At the appeal hearing, the environment is hostile, with the recent knife panic in the air: the defense is hindered from questioning witnesses while the judge and prosecutor cherry-pick testimony in an effort to justify continuing to jail the defendant pretrial, which would also facilitate his deportation. Even after a second appeal hearing does not reveal evidence sufficient to convict, the judge and prosecution insist on a high prison sentence, just two months short of his original one. The defendant is released after the second hearing because he has already served his sentence in pretrial detention.
Case 26
A young man is on trial for theft. During his trial, he is informed that his sentence will be high because he had a knife at the time, though the evidence does not show that it was used during the offense. The judge threatens the defendant with jail time. Without a lawyer to consult, he appears to have little choice but to accept the harsh sentence and put up with the judge’s insinuations that he steals for the purpose of reselling – just like unnamed “others” the judge refers to.
Case 25
Without a defendant or a lawyer present, the court issues a summary proceedings order, sentencing someone by mail for theft. The prosecution pushes for a harsh punishment and for retaining the charge “theft with a weapon” despite limited evidence of a weapon being present and without obtaining more evidence. Though the judge disagrees with the prosecution's original recommendation for a prison sentence, they sentence the defendant to a high fine of more than 1,300 Euros for stealing food.
Perspectives
Criminalized: The Anti-Migration Debate Fuels and Legitimizes Systemic Racism
Anthony Obst, Justice Collective
Fueled by media coverage of isolated violent incidents, a troubling consensus has emerged that presents increasingly severe law-and-order measures as the only solution to perceived insecurity supposedly caused by immigration. This obscures the violent realities of racist criminalization.
Refugees in Germany: The omnipresent border regime
Britta Rabe, Grundrechtekomitee
Even after surviving perilous journeys to reach the EU – which can include pushbacks, beatings, and torture – refugees face an exclusionary system within Fortress Europe that makes their arrival difficult or even impossible. The EU border regime extends all the way into Germany, permeating society invisibly yet tangibly for those who are excluded.