 |
[them...] selves, either by the
device of excessive occupation costs or by forced loans in return for a credit
balance on a ‘clearing account’ which was an account merely in
name.”* |
| With reference to the charges in the present indictment concerning
Farben’s activities in Poland, Norway, Alsace-Lorraine, and France, we
find that the proof establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that offenses against
property as defined in Control Council Law No. 10 were committed by Farben, and
that these offenses were connected with, and an inextricable part of the German
policy for occupied countries as above described. In some instances, following
confiscation by Reich authorities, Farben proceeded to acquire permanent title
to the properties thus confiscated. In other instances involving
“negotiations” with private owners, Farben proceeded permanently to
acquire substantial or controlling interests in property contrary to the wishes
of the owners. These activities were concluded by entering territory that had
been overrun and occupied by the Wehrmacht, or was under its effective control.
The action of Farben and its representatives, under these circumstances, cannot
be differentiated from acts of plunder or pillage committed by officers,
soldiers, or public officials of the German Reich. In these property
acquisitions which followed confiscation by the Reich, the course of action of
Farben clearly indicates a studied design to acquire such property. In most
instances the initiative was Farben’s. In those instances in which Farben
dealt directly with the private owners, there was the ever-present threat of
forceful seizure of the property by the Reich or other similar measures, such,
for example, as withholding licenses, raw materials, the threat of uncertain
drastic treatment in peace treaty negotiations, or other effective means of
bending the will of the owners. The power of the military occupant was the
ever-present threat in these transactions, and was clearly an important, if not
a decisive, factor. The result was enrichment of Farben and the building of its
greater chemical empire through the medium of the military occupancy at the
expense of the former owners. Such action on the part of Farben constituted a
violation of the Hague Regulations. It was in violation of rights of private
property, protected by the laws and customs of war and, in the instance
involving public property, the permanent acquisition was in violation of that
provision of the Hague Regulations which limits the occupying power to a mere
usufruct of real estate. The form of the transactions were varied and
intricate, and were reflected in corporate agreements well calculated to create
the illusion of legality. But the objective of pillage, plunder, and spoliation
stands out, and there can be no uncertainty as to the actual result.
|
__________
* Ibid., page
240.
1140 |
. 
