It’s a sentence that investigators hear again and again, in hundreds of interviews, from board members, managing directors and investors: “Without René Benko nothing worked.” But if you look in the company register, you won’t find his name anywhere. No board of directors, no managing director, no supervisory board – at least not since 2013.
A 182-page interim report from the Soko Signa on the subject of payment flows and power, for which 200 interviews were evaluated, now paints the picture of a man who controlled an empire worth billions without having an official managing director position. From 2013 to November 2023, Benko was only “chairman of the advisory board of Signa Holding”. At the same time, he was linked to various Signa companies through consulting contracts.
This construction, it becomes clear from the interrogations, served as a “legal cover” for de facto overall responsibility. The question that arises from the investigators’ report is of considerable legal relevance: Can someone who does not formally hold an organ function be held criminally responsible for decisions?
According to the case law of the Supreme Court (OGH), the de facto managing director in special offenses such as fraudulent Krida (damage to creditors) is classified as a “senior employee” within the meaning of Section 161 of the Criminal Code and is therefore treated the same as the debtor. As a result, he is subject to the same criminal consequences as a formally appointed body.
Serious accusations
Benko is supported by ex-employees, among others. referred to as “sole ruler”. He also released all significant payments, for example from Signa Holding. “I myself regularly went to René Benko with physical lists of what payments had to be made,” said chief accountant Arthur A.. “Benko symbolized the release of the payment with a ‘tick’ at each point. I would like to point out that in principle there was not a single release of payment without René Benko giving his consent.” Postscript: “Yes, he approved all essential payments and transactions.” This also applies to employee wage payments and managing director fees. A side detail: Benko was not authorized to sign for any of the approximately 3,000 companies in the Signa empire.
Just a mood picture?
Benko’s defense attorney Norbert Weiss rejects the accusation of “de facto ruler”. “This is a completely irrelevant term under criminal law,” claims Wess. The Soko report is “in no way relevant to the individual, specific allegations” because the statements from various people “merely reflect a general mood.” In criminal law, the only thing that matters is what specific act or what specific contribution someone made to a specific accusation.
“It is not enough to claim that Mr. Benko was the de facto managing director, the person in power,” emphasizes Wess. “The public prosecutor’s office must prove for each individual charge what specific contribution Benko made to the crime.”
According to Wess, the prosecutors are trying to use the report to paint a picture on a “meta level” that is “inadmissible” in criminal law. The only decisive factor is whether someone knowingly committed a crime in a specific business transaction or contributed to it – as an intended perpetrator or contributory perpetrator within the meaning of Section 12 of the Criminal Code.
New process
Meanwhile, Benko will be back in court in Innsbruck on November 4th and 5th. It’s about suspicion of fraud and fraudulent Krida. The Signa founder is said to be the family foundation Hans Peter Haselsteiner caused damage of five million euros. Benko vehemently denies the accusations.
This is what the Economic and Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office (WKStA) says loudly WHAT Benko alleges that he gave the former Strabag boss Hans Peter Haselsteiner or representatives of his family foundation a “false guarantee” and that he caused “fraudulent damage to the amount of around five million euros” to the foundation. The representatives of the private foundation are said to have been tricked into giving around 3.3 million euros to the Signa Holding GmbH to transfer and refrain from demanding the repayment of a further 1.7 million euros. According to the content of the guarantee statement, the payment of around five million euros to the private foundation was untruthfully promised by June 30, 2024 at the latest, but this was not done. In total, the private foundation is said to have been damaged by around 5 million euros and Signa Holding and another company were unlawfully enriched in return.
The second count concerns the Krida accusation: According to the indictment, the authorities accuse Benko of having prevented or reduced the satisfaction of creditors’ claims as part of the Signa insolvency and his insolvency as a sole proprietor by allegedly hiding a hunting rifle worth 80,000 euros. The WKStA sees this as fulfilling the crime of fraudulent Krida. This accusation is a partial aspect of the larger procedural strand surrounding Benko’s insolvency. Investigations into further allegations in this context are still ongoing. The charges were filed in June. If convicted, Benko could face a prison sentence of up to ten years.