Nursida B., who had applied for political asylum in Germany, came to our law firm for help. Instead of asylum, she was facing up to five years in a German prison.
A Story with a Bitter Aftertaste
Before we turn to Nursida’s own story, it is worth describing the background against which certain decisions are made regarding different groups of asylum seekers. Today’s applicants are no longer, as in Soviet times, individuals persecuted in their home countries for political, racial or religious reasons; more often each wave is a mass phenomenon (refugee groups from North Africa are one example). As a result, politicians and authorities have developed separate practices for entire groups of people. It has long been common practice to reject applications from refugees from Ukraine on general grounds relating to the fighting in eastern Ukraine, since there is no fighting in the rest of the country. The wave of emigration from the Caucasus republics — in our case, from Chechnya — is likewise a phenomenon in its own right, with its own particular features.
The Long Arm of the Kremlin?
In 2016 and 2017 the German press published several reports revealing the extent to which members of the Caucasian diaspora (Chechen, Dagestani, Ingush and others) were involved in criminal activity in Germany, and describing a revival of a phenomenon from the 1990s: protection racketeering. Back then, the Soviet mafia failed to bring Germany’s legal and economic space under its control, and it is hardly likely that the Germans would be prepared to show more tolerance towards organized crime a second time. The greatest stir, however, was caused by a film broadcast on ZDF in which a man presenting himself as a defected head of an FSB department claimed that the mass emigration of Chechens to Europe was a secret Kremlin operation designed to create hotbeds of destabilization in Europe. And given that three quarters of the members of the Islamist underground arrested in Belgium in 2016 came from Chechnya, there seemed to be good reason to believe the former Russian intelligence officer.
It cannot be said that all refugees from Chechnya have criminal intentions, or that they all came at Kadyrov’s behest without having faced any threat at home. But in reality, what is plainly visible shapes attitudes towards all members of the Chechen diaspora, and so the authorities develop a certain general practice. For applicants from Chechnya, it has become customary to reject almost all cases based on political grounds and to order their removal from the country. It was against exactly this background that our client, Nursida B., ran into trouble — and had she not come to us in time, she could have ended up behind bars.
A Figure Against This Background
Nursida came to our firm together with an acquaintance — a former Muscovite who has lived in Germany for many years. It was this very acquaintance that was to play both a fateful and a positive role in Nursida’s story. But first things first.
Like everyone arriving in Germany to apply for asylum, Nursida was interviewed and searched. During the interview she stated that she had only two hundred euros with her. During the personal search, however, two bank cards with a combined balance of three thousand euros were found. The discrepancy between her statement and her actual financial situation was treated as an offense under § 263 StGB — Betrug (fraud). Since all new arrivals are entitled to state benefits, and the amount depends on the funds the applicant has, Nursida’s conduct could only be seen as an attempt to deceive the state and enrich herself unlawfully. The penalty is imprisonment of up to five years. Given that Nursida belonged to a particular group of refugees and had made a false statement in her interview, she was facing not refugee status but, inevitably, a prison sentence. Her bank cards were seized, and she was sent away to await her fate.
Her visit to our firm, however, turned things around in our client’s favor. As Nursida told our lawyers, she had indeed made a false statement, but without realizing it. Her own money really did amount to only two hundred euros. She had received the three thousand euros from an acquaintance in Moscow on her way to Berlin, to pass on to that acquaintance’s sick relative in Berlin. That is why, during the interview, Nursida did not even think of the money on the bank cards — it was not hers. In fact, she came to us with the husband of that very sick relative of the Moscow acquaintance, who did not want the money to end up with the state.
All Will Be Well
After requesting the investigation files, our lawyers found that the elements of an offense were indeed present. But a careful analysis of the situation opened up the possibility of having the proceedings discontinued for minor culpability (Geringfügigkeit der Schuld) under § 153 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO). This made it possible to apply for an out-of-court resolution of the matter. On the one hand, Nursida feared that instead of political asylum she would find herself on a plane back home; on the other, she was afraid the money would be lost before it reached the person it was meant for.
Our lawyers drafted an application to discontinue the criminal proceedings for minor culpability, setting out all the circumstances of the case in detail. They explained that the money was intended to be passed on to a third party; that Nursida had not intended to deceive the migration authorities; that the incorrect statement may have been caused by poor interpreting; and that the investigation files did not show whether she had been asked specific questions about her funds, with the details and the consequences of withholding information explained to her. They also applied for Nursida’s acquaintance, for whom the money was intended, to be questioned in order to confirm that our client had no criminal intent.
Sadly, while the proceedings were still ongoing, the woman for whom the money was intended — the money that had played such a fateful role in Nursida’s story — passed away. But the truth still had to come out.
After this woman’s husband was questioned at our request, the three thousand euros were handed over to him. During the questioning he gave the name and address of the relative in Moscow who had sent the money. In theory, international mutual legal assistance could have been used to question the sender of the three thousand euros. But the information provided by the late woman’s husband was convincing enough to make an international check unnecessary. The public prosecutor’s office (Staatsanwaltschaft) accepted all our arguments, and the criminal proceedings against Nursida were discontinued for minor culpability — exactly the goal the defense had pursued from the outset on behalf of the woman suspected of fraud.
This story therefore had a relatively happy ending. Yet it could have turned out quite differently — or never have taken this course at all — had Nursida not turned to experienced lawyers and instead left the matter to chance.
All rights reserved. Copying or republishing this article requires a link to the original source.
