 |
| |
Individual Responsibility
We will now turn to the
consideration of the individual responsibility of the defendants for the acts
of spoliation which we have described in the above findings. It is appropriate
here to mention that the corporate defendant, Farben, is not before the bar of
this Tribunal and cannot be subjected to criminal penalties in these
proceedings. We have used the term “Farben” as descriptive of the
instrumentality of cohesion in the name of which the enumerated acts of
spoliation were committed. But corporations act through individuals and, under
the conception of personal individual guilt to which previous reference has
been made, the prosecution, to discharge the burden imposed upon it in this
case, must establish by competent proof beyond a reasonable doubt that an
individual defendant was either a participant in the illegal act or that, being
aware thereof, he authorized or approved it. Responsibility does not
automatically attach to an act proved to be criminal merely by virtue of a
defendant’s membership in the Vorstand. Conversely, one may not utilize
the corporate structure to achieve an immunity from criminal responsibility for
illegal acts which he directs, counsels, aids, orders, or abets. But the
evidence must establish action of the character we have indicated, with
knowledge of the essential elements of the crime. In some instances,
individuals performing these acts are not before this Tribunal. In other
instances, the record has large gaps as to where or when the policy was set. In
some instances, a policy is set without clear indication that essential factual
elements required to make it criminal were disclosed. Difficulties of
establishing such proof due to the destruction of records or other causes does
not relieve the prosecution of its burden in this respect.
One cannot
condone the activities of Farben in the field of spoliation. If not actually
marching with the Wehrmacht, Farben at least was not far behind. But
translating the criminal responsibility to personal and individual criminal
acts is another matter. With these preliminary observations our findings as to
individual defendants are as follows:
Krauch The evidence does
not establish that Krauch was criminally connected with Farben’s
spoliative acts in Poland. Owing to his position with the government, he was
not active in the administrative affairs of Farben after 1936, and he became
further removed from the routine management with his appointment to the
chairmanship of the Aufsichtsrat in 1940. There is no showing that he had any
part in the establishment of the policy pursuant to which Farben acquired the
properties in Poland.
With reference to the alleged removal of machine
installations from the Simon Pit in Lorraine, it appears that Krauch wrote a
letter to the |
1153 |
. 
