 |
from his membership in the Vorstand, and he is acquitted of all of
the charges under count two of the indictment.
Von Knieriem. Von
Knieriem was not only a member of Farben's Vorstand, he was also the first
lawyer in Farben. But the evidence does not establish that he ever acted on any
of the matters charged as spoliation in count two. Nowhere does it appear that
he was consulted for legal advice in connection with these transactions or that
he counseled or aided in their consummation. The one instance of evidence
establishing that von Knieriem considered legal problems in occupied
territories dealt with corporate problems of an entirely different character
from the immediate acquisitions of property with which we are here concerned
under the evidence. It is not established that von Knieriem knew of the methods
being pursued by Farben in acquiring property against the will and consent of
the owners in occupied territories, or that he was in any way a party to the
acquisitions in Poland and Alsace-Lorraine. His action in a legal capacity in
the establishment of the eastern corporations for possible operations in Russia
is not connected with any completed act of spoliation. Von Knieriem is found
Not Guilty under count two of the indictment.
Ter Meer. We find
that the proof establishes the guilt of the defendant ter Meer under count two
of the indictment beyond reasonable doubt. He was prominently connected with
the activities of Farben in the acquisition of the Polish property and in the
Francolor acquisition. The evidence establishes that ter Meer acted for Farben
in the selection of the personnel to operate the plants. There can be no doubt
that the initiative in acquiring the Polish property came from Farben, and that
ter Meer, as chairman of the Technical Committee, was fully advised in regard
to Farben’s contemplated action and the course of the negotiations. He
issued instructions in connection with the negotiations. He acted with the
defendant von Schnitzler in applying for the license to purchase the Boruta
plant. We have found no criminality in the Winnica stock acquisition, but the
fact that this contract was signed by the defendant ter Meer is indicative of
the extent to which he was apprised of, and connected with, the course of
action of Farben in Poland. It is clear that ter Meer took a consenting part in
Farben’s acts of spoliation in Poland, and participated with von
Schnitzler throughout this matter.
Ter Meer took a prominent part in
the planning for contemplated spoliation in Soviet Russia, but, as we have
heretofore indicated, this did not result in any completed spoliative act. Nor
is the evidence sufficient in any way to connect the defendant ter Meer with
spoliation in the case of Norsk-Hydro.
Ter Meer was a guilty participant
in Farben’s acquisition of the confiscated Mulhouse plant, as he knew of
and tacitly approved the acquisition. He approved the Rhône-Poulenc
license agreement, |
1159 |
. 
