 |
that his action in approving these transactions constitutes
sufficient conduct to warrant a finding of Guilty. The minutes of the Farben
groups to which reference has been made are abbreviated in form and, in most
instances, merely indicate that a report was made by the responsible Farben
official charged with the execution of the project. The extent of the report is
not shown. The reports made and distributed and the minutes reflecting
discussion and action do not contain sufficient evidence from which it may be
conclusively inferred that illegal methods would be used in the negotiations.
Nor does it appear from the reports that the transactions were to be concluded
without the full consent of the owners. With reference to acquisitions in
Poland and Alsace-Lorraine which are connected with unlawful confiscations, the
evidence of required knowledge of the facts is not found in the record. One
may, in reviewing all this evidence, strongly suspect that much more of the
details of the negotiations were actually reported and may have fully apprised
Vorstand members that property was being illegally acquired in occupied
territories, but suspicion alone does not amount to the requisite proof, as the
minutes themselves would be equally consistent with action that would not
import criminality. We cannot conclude that Gajewski’s conduct in
expressly or impliedly approving action reported at Vorstand or other meetings
where the property acquisitions here considered were reported upon establishes
his guilt under count two beyond a reasonable doubt.
It does not appear
from the evidence that Gajewski’s activity in the Kodak-Pathé
matter resulted in any completed act of spoliation. His action here may have
been laying the foundation for such an act, but it was not consummated.
He is acquitted of the charges under this count, as we do not consider
that it is proved that he took a part in any criminal action charged in count
two.
Hoerlein. There is no substantial evidence connecting the
defendant Hoerlein with any of the acts of spoliation charged in the
indictment, other than his activity as a member of the Vorstand and the
Technical Committee. In this respect, what we have said in general terms in our
consideration of the evidence relied upon in the case of the defendant Gajewski
is applicable to this defendant. His principal connection under the evidence
was in the Rhône-Poulenc transaction, in which it does appear that he had
a degree of participation and knowledge which went beyond that of an ordinary
Vorstand member. Under the view which we have expressed in our general findings
of the facts, the Rhône-Poulenc transaction is not considered by the
Tribunal as involving a war crime within its jurisdiction, regardless of how
much the transaction might be condemned based on other considerations. We
cannot impute criminal guilt to the defendant Hoerlein |
1158 |
. 
