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 34
A man faces trial for stealing a small quantity of food and alcohol. In cases involving substance use (including alcohol and other drugs), courts often want to hear that people facing trial have stopped using substances, are working, or otherwise trying to fit into society. While the defendant ticks all these boxes, and the judge seemingly acknowledges punishment will be counterproductive, she sentences him to a high fine anyway, ending by saying, “Those are the consequences of committing a crime. You should have thought of that at the time.”
Case 33
A man with precarious residence status and problems related to drug use is convicted of shoplifting items valued under €40. The court imposes a fine of almost €2,000 for theft with a weapon. Despite the judge’s hesitation about whether there actually was a weapon involved, she goes along with the prosecution’s recommended sentence, with serious financial implications and possible migration consequences for the defendant.
Case 32
After spending three nights in pretrial detention, a man faces accelerated proceedings on theft charges for stealing goods valued at about €50. He is sentenced to seven months prison as the prosecutor and judge see his repeated theft offenses as evidence not of his life challenges but rather the need for a harsh sentence. Joined by the person’s attorney, all seem to believe the best place for treatment is in prison.
Case 31
A young man who was unhoused and jailed pretrial is sentenced to pay €750 in fines for theft of food, toiletries, and other small items. Although the court acknowledged that he is experiencing problems related to drug use and poverty, the judge finds that the defendant should have simply “said no” to drugs. The sentence came with a warning that any future offense would lead to incarceration.
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.