 |
but, as we have indicated, criminality cannot be predicated on that
transaction.
Ter Meer was a leading participant in the Francolor
negotiations. He attended the important Wiesbaden meetings at which the Farben
demands were served on the French, and at which pressure was used to obtain the
consent of the French. He received reports from Farben representatives that
were sufficiently in detail fully to apprise him of the course of the
negotiations and the tactics being employed. He signed the Francolor
Convention. Ter Meer had intimate personal knowledge of the plight of the
French industry and was fully aware of Farben’s action in gaining the
support of the Nazi authorities in making it difficult for the French industry
to resume production. We cannot accept the defense that this was a normal
business transaction between parties free to negotiate, regardless of mutual
clauses contained in the Francolor Convention. Ter Meer’s participation in
this entire transaction was at the important level of policymaking. He was
dictating the terms and acting, along with von Schnitzler, as the responsible
Vorstand member handling the matter. He is criminally connected with the
Francolor transaction.
We find the defendant ter Meer Guilty under
count two of the indictment.
Schneider, Kuehne and
Lautenschlaeger. The evidence to support the charges of participation in
the spoliation alleged in count two of the indictment is substantially the same
in the individual cases of the defendants Schneider, Kuehne, and
Lautenschlaeger. It is the contention of the prosecution that these defendants
are responsible for, knew of, and approved the program of Farben to acquire,
with the aid of force and compulsion, property in occupied territories. It is
contended that these defendants, as members of the Vorstand, attended Vorstand
meetings, meetings of the Farben committees, and other policy-making groups, at
which such action was authorized or approved. It is further contended that they
received reports of a character to advise them of the contemplated action. We
have carefully examined this evidence. What we have said with reference to the
individual responsibility of the defendant Gajewski is applicable here. We do
not consider that the evidence has sufficiently established the degree of
affirmative action with knowledge of the details importing criminality to
warrant a finding of guilt in the case of these three defendants. Each is,
therefore, acquitted of the charges under count two of the indictment.
Ambros. The defendant Ambros was a member of Farben’s
Vorstand during the entire period of World War II. It is the contention of the
prosecution that, in that capacity and as a member of the TEA, Ambros
participated in planning the spoliation and plunder, and that he affirmatively
approved and ratified all of the spolia- [...tive] |
1160 |
. 
