Why Reiner Fuellmich Was Guilty - Part 2

Part 1 of this series provided an overview of the case against Reiner Fuellmich.

This part looks at the specific legal violations committed by Fuellmich, as well as the performance he put on for his supporters toward the end of the trial.

Breach of Trust

The agreements made between Fuellmich and Viviane Fischer concerning the payments of €200,000.00 and €500,000.00 made to him in November 2020 and May 2021, respectively, imply that the CIC funds were to be held in trust (p. 47).

In practice, however, Fuellmich did not hold the assets in trust, because, having failed to inform Antonia Fischer and Hoffmann about their transfer, there was no trust relationship (p. 51). Rather, the “sham loans” circumvented and disregarded the rights of those two co-shareholders and co-managing directors, constituting a serious breach of trust (p. 52).

The “sham loans” furthermore contradicted the provision in the pre-incorporation company’s articles of association stipulating that the shareholders were not permitted to receive any distributions from company funds (p. 51). 

Failure to Manage Assets and Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Fuellmich violated his duty to manage assets by transferring sums of money to his private account and to his wife's private account in the manner and with the intention described (p. 51).

The transfer of funds occurred without any precautions to ensure the proper safekeeping of the money. Despite the considerable sums involved, no security was provided (p. 52). 

The transfer of funds for private use constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, because it meant the funds were no longer economically attributable to the pre-incorporation company (pp. 53, 55). 

A breach of fiduciary duty occurs when a person or entity in a position of trust (the fiduciary) fails to act in the best interests of the party they are obligated to serve. This was most evident when Fuellmich decided, in the autumn of 2021, not to repay the assets he had unlawfully received at all, but rather to transfer them to the new company he had established with Viviane Fischer (p. 54). 

Financial Loss

Even if Fuellmich had repaid the embezzled amounts, this would legally have counted as restitution rather than repayment, because the pre-incorporation company had already incurred financial loss as a result of him circumventing the other shareholders, claiming control over the money, and, in the autumn of 2021, refusing to repay it (p. 56). 

Valuable real security that could have compensated for the damage (at least in part) was not provided. For example, Fuellmich did not grant the pre-incorporation company a mortgage on his property, nor did he provide guarantees from solvent acquaintances. Despite referencing his wife’s ranch in the second “loan agreement” for €500,000.00, nothing was ever implemented in relation to the ranch (p. 56).

Private Use of CIC Funds

The Judgment finds that the €500,000 was “used for the defendant's private purposes, in particular the repayment of loans” (p. 20). The money was, “as [the defendant] had intended from the outset, unilaterally spent for private purposes” (p. 12). 

Using the money for private expenses was incompatible with the stated purpose of the payments, namely, to maintain the CIC’s ability to function in the event of account seizures or terminations (p. 42). 

Although Fuellmich was aware, as per email and chat messages sent on November 7 and 9, 2020, that he was obligated to keep the transferred funds available at all times for the pre-company, he did not keep sufficient liquid assets for repaying the loan if required (p. 24). 

The €200,000 transferred into his wife’s account increased the balance to €211,051.87 and was spent on personal expenses including a standing order to her daughter from a previous marriage and payments for insurance, restaurants, and other private purchases (p. 24). The balance of that account had been steadily declining and would soon have turned negative were it not for the receipt of the €200,000 (p. 42).

Of the €500,000 that was transferred into Fuellmich’s account on May 27, 2021, €50,000.00 was transferred into his wife’s account on August 18, 2021, a further €264,194.48 was transferred to that account when the account was closed on September 8, 2021, and the remainder was used to repay loans (p. 25).

Fuellmich told the court that he had to spend the money because his or his wife’s account could have been seized at any time. However, the Judgment rejects that explanation, because the funds were spent gradually, with a large portion left in the bank accounts for a correspondingly long time (p. 42).

Moreover, the bank loans relating to his property were repaid, not from CIC money, but from the €500,000 that he had borrowed through his lawyer, Marcel Templin, in relation to the transnational class action lawsuit that he allegedly had planned. The CIC money was instead spent over a long period on a divorce settlement, paying off a business loan, gardening expenses, paying off a loan on his mother’s house, and other private expenses (p. 54). 

In July 2022, Viviane Fischer, who may have known or suspected that Fuellmich had spent the money primarily for private purposes, asked him to transfer €50,000 of the €700,000 he had received into the CIC account, which had by then been established (p. 22). 

Fuellmich replied on July 7, 2022, that 

We didn’t leave anything in the accounts [...] we paid off the bank loans that were on the house (since we wouldn’t have received an extension from the bank anyway). But everything’s there, and since we’re selling the house now, it should all be back with you in a few weeks. (p. 22)

Fuellmich’s need to explain that the money had not been left in bank accounts would not have been necessary had he properly discussed his use of the funds with Viviane Fischer. Fuellmich did not try arguing in court that such a discussion had taken place (p. 38).

Fischer replied to Fuellmich that she had not agreed to putting money into the house because it was a liquidity problem (p. 38).

The Property Sale

When Fuellmich tried to sell his property for €1,345,000 on October 3, 2022, he claimed that the land register was clean (no encumbrances). The purchase agreements stipulated that the money was to be paid into his wife’s account (p. 28). The fact that his wife’s account was listed as the recipient account is a further indicator that Fuellmich claimed the right to decide for himself to whom he would transfer the money (p. 46).

However, there were €650,000 of land charges on the property, of which €500,000 was outstanding, i.e., the €500,000 secured against the property via the interest-free loan arranged through Marcel Templin on January 27, 2021 (pp. 26-27).  

Templin told the buyers that he would provide the necessary release authorization if they paid him €1,158,250.00 of the purchase price, leaving only €186,022.19 to be transferred to Fuellmich’s wife's account (p. 29). 

Fuellmich did not return the €186,022.19 from the sale of his house to the pre-incorporation company (p. 45).

Failure to Repay Funds

The €700,000.00 taken by Fuellmich was not repaid to the pre-incorporation company, in whole or in part (not even the €186,022.19 from the house sale). 

Fuellmich told the court that, despite being aware that he had to repay the predecessor company, this had been practically impossible for him. The predecessor company had never been registered and therefore did not exist. There was also no account belonging to the predecessor company. (p. 32)

The Judgment finds, however, that these are “mere pretexts,” as Fuellmich could have discussed repayment arrangements with the other three lawyers involved in the CIC and found an appropriate solution. As an erstwhile practicing lawyer, it was not credible for Fuellmich to try to create the impression that he was unable to make the repayments (p. 46). 

In any case, Fuellmich’s law firm had previously invoiced the pre-incorporation company for committee work carried out (p. 50).

Attempts to Keep Viviane Fischer On Board

In a chat message dated January 16, 2021, in which Hoffmann and Antonia Fischer were mentioned, Fuellmich told Viviane Fischer that only the two of them had "control over the money.” In an email sent the same day, he encouraged Viviane Fischer to use the €100,000 entrusted to her for private expenses (p. 23). 

In the eyes of the court, this was to “eliminate her as a potential source of exposure to his actions and the resulting criminal and civil consequences” (p. 23). For if she, too, were to misappropriate funds and use them for her own private expenditure, she would not seek to expose Fuellmich for doing the same thing. 

As it turned out, Viviane Fischer did accuse Fuellmich of embezzlement in September 2022, after he failed to repay €50,000 upon request in July 2022. Fuellmich’s reply to that request included the line “What about your 100,000? Gone already?” (p. 43), as though to imply culpability on her part and to warn her against going any further.

In an email dated August 26, 2022, Fuellmich proposed that the money from the sale of his property should be split equally between himself and Viviane Fischer and spent at their own discretion on committee projects, as long as they did not “buy a Ferrari” (p. 45). This peculiar turn of phrase (for why would an investigative committee think about buying a Ferrari?) may again have been intended to entice Viviane Fischer into becoming his accomplice, although there is nothing in the Judgment to that effect. 

None of this is to defend Viviane Fischer, about whose conduct questions have been asked. The Judgment relates to Fuellmich, not Fischer, although at one point it does refer to “collusion” (p. 130).

Fuellmich’s Behaviour In Court

It should be clear, from the hard evidence presented above, that Reiner Fuellmich was guilty of embezzlement. 

Nevertheless, many people adamantly protest his innocence. Why?

The answer probably involves a combination of the hope that people had invested in him to get justice during the Covid era and the performance he put on for his supporters during the latter stages of his trial. 

For example, Fuellmich deployed premeditated “insults and public humiliation,” such as referring to the complainants as "nobodies" and "old shits," Viviane Fischer as a “lying bitch,” and her and Hoffmann as “mentally ill” and “mentally disturbed” (p. 60). 

He used his closing statement to call the head of the prison’s medical service a “disgusting scumbag,” the complainant's tax advisor a “disgusting jerk, loudmouth, and windbag,” the complainant a “loser,” the prison's security chief “sadistic," [Viviane Fischer] an "idiot,” and a former fellow inmate a “traitor,” “sycophant," and “idiot.” He even declared that his situation was no different from that of a concentration camp prisoner and claimed he had been treated as badly as the Hamas hostages (p. 60).

Such conduct was objectively not in the best interest of his defence and, in the court’s view,  was a ploy to use the proceedings as a stage to portray himself as a victim of political persecution, to defame other persons, and to incite outrage (p. 111). This is consistent with “black propaganda” tactics. 

The closing statements were ludicrously prolonged from November 7, 2024, to April 2025, owing to an abuse of process that was maliciously intended to delay proceedings and which twisted “the generally unlimited freedom of speech and freedom of defence” into something else (pp. 114-117, 126-128), which I would describe as demagogery.

For example, Fuellmich used the closing statements to turn the blame back on Viviane Fischer, questioning whether she had kept her €100,000 liquid or was willing to repay it (even though she did), how she managed to repay it, on what basis the public prosecutor's office had discontinued proceedings against her, and whether her husband would have been prepared to guarantee the amount due to an alleged extramarital affair (p. 117). All of this was deemed irrelevant. 

The motives of the Mexican authorities for deporting Fuellmich were similarly judged irrelevant to either his guilt or the legal consequences (p. 119). It is telling that Fuellmich felt the need to flee to Mexico (rather than his US ranch) in the first place. Was he seeking to evade justice following the publication of his arrest warrant? 

On November 7, 2024, Fuellmich claimed that Viviane Fischer’s “highly irrational, indeed delusional, behavior” was triggered via mind control and that she was deliberately deployed by the intelligence services to make his behaviour appear criminal (p. 121). 

He accused the judge of corruption or extortion in participating in “the most blatant perversion of justice,” describing the conduct of the proceedings as “unlawful” and threatening to file a criminal complaint about the judge with the Federal Prosecutor's Office (pp. 121, 134).

An alleged leaked dossier on Fuellmich revealed a plan, dating back to 2021, to “get rid of him somehow” and to make him “ineligible for election in the Federal Republic of Germany.” This refers to Fuellmich’s involvement with Die Basis, a new party formed by opponents of the “Covid-19” measures in Germany. Supposedly, “one of the services, such as the Federal Criminal Police Office,” had tried to recruit people from his circle to provide information on him that would lead to his conviction. 

The problem with the “leaked dossier” narrative is that it originated from Fuellmich’s own lawyer, Dr. Christof Miseré. There is no third-party evidence to support it. It is just another way of seeding the “political persecution” narrative. Die Basis only received 1.4% of second votes nationwide in 2021 — nowhere enough to pass the 5% threshold for seats in the Bundestag. In 2025, Die Basis won only 0.2% of second votes. Fuellmich, therefore, was never going to assume political office.

Fuellmich knew that he was playing to an audience. The sessions were well attended by his supporters, many displaying messages of support on their clothing or through applause, while showing disapproval towards the other side, despite repeated warnings. Fuellmich also sent regular audio messages to his supporters via his lawyer until she was fined by the public prosecutor's office for doing so (p. 128). 

The Judgment finds that Fuellmich’s strategy was not aimed at influencing the verdict in his favor, but rather at influencing international public opinion in his favour, particularly through social media platforms, some of which were reporting live from the trial (p. 128). He used the opportunity to propagate the narrative that he was being persecuted by the intelligence services because of his political activism against the “Covid-19” measures and planned international lawsuits (p. 129). 

Fuellmich claimed he was being held in solitary confinement (describing it as “white torture”), when in reality the prison administration had been ordered to separate him from another prisoner who was in pretrial detention so that he could not give him legal advice (p. 131). He claimed he was being denied medication, when in reality, as he later admitted, he had refused to take his blood pressure medication under supervision (p. 131). 

It was pure theatre. On one occasion, Fuellmich left the courtroom and declared that he was no longer available to participate, as he did not wish to continue taking part in a trial from which the public was being unlawfully excluded. He then temporarily sat in the public gallery before later taking his seat again next to the defence lawyers (p. 132)

Yet, his supporters in court, and elsewhere, believed it. 

PART 3 will look in more detail at the nature of the grift carried out by Fuellmich.

Support My Work

If you valued this content and are not a paid subscriber, please consider leaving a one-off tip for an amount of your choosing.

If you would like to make a one-off or recurring donation to help fund my work in general, I would be most grateful. There are numerous ways of doing so.

If you have not done so already, please consider taking out a subscription – free, paid, or gold-tier.