Arşiv

📂 Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin – 13 March 2026 to 20 September 2026: Failure to Investigate the Criminal Complaint, Failure to Secure Evidence, Serious Procedural Contradictions and Continuing Prosecutorial Inaction – Case No. 253 AR 31/26

Explanation of the Folder This folder contains, in chronological order, documents showing the subsequent handling at the level of the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin of the criminal complaint that I lodged with Berlin Police, LKA 121, on 19 December 2025 under reference number 251219-1346-467062. The materials I had submitted to the Kammergericht were subsequently forwarded to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin. In its letter under reference number 253 AR 31/26, the Staatsanwaltschaft expressly confirmed that my submission to the Kammergericht had been forwarded to the public prosecutor’s office. Nevertheless, the public prosecutor’s office stated that it was unable to identify a corresponding criminal investigation and requested that I again explain which specific court or authority and which case reference number the matter concerned. scan_20260623134446-151554.pdf This response created an important contradiction. The materials I had submitted to the Kammergericht already specifically identified the Berlin Criminal Police reference number 251219-1346-467062, and the principal reason for my application to the Court was precisely that my criminal complaint had not been investigated and that no corresponding Ermittlungsverfahren existed at the public prosecutor’s office. Therefore, requesting from me an additional reference number for an investigation that did not exist did not resolve the fundamental problem raised in my complaint. For this reason, on 23 March 2026, I submitted an extensive Stellungnahme to the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin. In that document, I again identified the reference number 251219-1346-467062 of the criminal complaint I had lodged with LKA 121 on 19 December 2025. I stated that during the police intake two different versions of the same complaint had been prepared — a comprehensive version covering Behandlungsfehler, Körperverletzung and Betrug and a shortened version limited only to Betrug — that I had been provided only with the shortened version, and that I had been asked to sign a document whose substantive text section was blank. I further stated that I had not been given a copy of that blank document and had not been permitted to photograph it. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf In the Stellungnahme, I put specific questions to the public prosecutor’s office: what had subsequently been written on the blank document that I had signed; why a complete copy of it had not been provided to me; why the matter had later been treated as a complaint against an “unknown person” even though the police officer had identified the name and practice address of the treating person together with me; why I had never been summoned for an additional statement despite having been expressly promised that I would be; and why my WhatsApp communications, video and photographic material, and evidence of payments totalling EUR 11,000 had neither been secured nor requested. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf I also stated that the full name of the treating person, the practice address and a detailed description of the events had already been provided in my application submitted to the Kammergericht on 16 January 2026 under case number 6 Ws 11/26. I therefore requested an explanation as to how the Staatsanwaltschaft’s subsequent reference to proceedings against an “unknown person” could be reconciled with the actual circumstances. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf In my Stellungnahme of 23 March, I also expressly raised the issue of legal responsibility. The document referred to § 160 StPO, under which the Staatsanwaltschaft is required, where concrete indications exist, to investigate the facts and fully clarify the circumstances. I further stated that, depending on the circumstances, a failure to conduct an appropriate investigation despite the concrete indications and evidence presented could raise legal questions under § 258a StGB concerning possible obstruction of criminal prosecution by a public official. This does not constitute a conclusion that such an offence has already been proven, but rather a legal concern raised in the document that requires investigation. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf Furthermore, under the Legalitätsprinzip provided for in § 152(2) StPO, unless otherwise provided by law, the public prosecutor’s office must intervene where sufficient factual indications of a prosecutable criminal offence exist. § 160(1) StPO requires the public prosecutor’s office to investigate the factual circumstances once it becomes aware, through a criminal complaint or by other means, of a suspected criminal offence, while § 160(2) StPO requires the investigation of both incriminating and exonerating circumstances and the timely securing of evidence that is at risk of being lost. These legal obligations were of particular importance in my case. This was because the matter did not concern documentation alone. I had informed the authorities of the existence of WhatsApp communications, photographs and videos, treatment records and payment evidence. Nevertheless, according to the information I submitted, these materials had not been collected from me. In my Stellungnahme, I expressly stated that all relevant evidence remained available and could be provided at any time. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf At the same time, the matter concerned a serious and progressively worsening health condition. I had reported the continuing destruction of my teeth, infection and loss of chewing function, as well as HIV/AIDS, a previous heart attack and surgery, a history of pulmonary tuberculosis, hepatitis A, chronic prostatitis, chronic sinusitis, gastrointestinal illnesses, a serious medical suspicion of oncological disease, and other serious illnesses. In my Stellungnahme of 23 March, I stated that my health condition had deteriorated significantly further, that another tooth had broken and been irreversibly destroyed as a result of the progressing infection, that adequate medical treatment was not being provided, and that the situation created an acute danger to my health. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf In the same document, I also referred to Article 25 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, requesting that the state authorities take into account their obligations concerning access to medical care and protection from serious threats to health. I also referred to Article 13 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, emphasizing the importance of ensuring effective access to justice for persons with disabilities. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf At the conclusion of the Stellungnahme, I requested that the Staatsanwaltschaft conduct a complete and objective investigation of the matter, provide me with a reasoned written legal decision if it intended to discontinue the proceedings, and exhaust all readily available investigative measures before any possible discontinuation. In particular, I requested the evaluation of the already identified communications, video material and payment evidence, as well as the identification and questioning of the specifically named treating persons. scan_20260623134701-151808.pdf Accordingly, in my assessment, the documents contained in this folder establish that the Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin was aware of the existence of the matter, that materials had been forwarded to it from the Kammergericht, and that on 23 March 2026 I again provided in detail the specific police reference number, the issue concerning the signing of a blank document, the identified persons, the evidence that had not been collected, the serious risks to my health, and the specific legal obligations involved. Nevertheless, up to 20 September 2026, I had not received any further reasoned decision demonstrating that the substance of my criminal complaint had been investigated and that these specific questions had been addressed. In my assessment, against the background of the prosecutorial investigative obligations under § 152(2) and § 160 StPO, this continuing inaction, together with the serious procedural events that I reported as having occurred during the police intake, raises serious questions concerning a possible institutional cover-up. Determining whether this constitutes deliberate obstruction of criminal prosecution or gives rise to liability under § 258a StGB requires an independent factual and legal investigation.