 |
We do not find that the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt
any connection of the defendant Ilgner with the other particulars alleging acts
of spoliation under count two.
Jaehne. It is the contention of
the prosecution that Jaehne, as leader of Farben’s Offenbach plant,
participated in the acquisition of the dismantled equipment which was shipped
from Wola to that plant. The evidence on this point is conflicting. Subordinate
employees testified that Jaehne was not, in fact, informed of the purchase. We
have concluded that there is doubt concerning his knowledge of this matter and,
as this is the only connection of the defendant Jaehne with Farben’s
spoliative activities in Poland, he is acquitted on this particular of count
two.
But the evidence does establish Jaehne’s participation in
certain of the negotiations with governmental authorities prior to the
acquisition by Farben of the confiscated Alsace-Lorraine oxygen and acetylene
plants, in which he obtained agreement in accordance with Farben’s wishes.
Jaehne was fully informed of, and took a consenting part in, Farben’s acts
of spoliation in the acquisition of these plants. That it was Farben’s
purpose from the outset to acquire the plants permanently is fully established
by the evidence. The disruption of industry in Alsace-Lorraine may have made it
necessary for the occupying authorities to reactivate the plants, but this
defense is not available when it is shown clearly that Farben’s purpose
was the permanent acquisition of the plants and not their mere reactivation in
the interest of the local economy. As the matter was stated by Mayer-Wegelin,
an employee of Farben’s who handled the major part of the negotiations
with the Nazi governmental authorities: |
| |
“No negotiations were
conducted with these former owners, nor were their interests considered by us.
We rather negotiated with the sequestrators appointed by the German Reich. We
were indeed aware that the purchase of the real property and of the plants as
far as they still existed might be attacked under international agreement. We,
therefore, recognized the possibility that at a later time we might have to
return the real property * * * In other words; in order to maintain our oxygen
position we reached the result that we should assume the risk of having to
return the property.” [NI-8581, Pros. Ex.
1238.] |
| |
Jaehne’s connection with this matter was such that he must be
held criminally responsible under this aspect of count two of the indictment.
There is not sufficient evidence to warrant his conviction under any of the
other particulars set forth in count two.
Mann. Mann’s
activities in relation to the spoliation of Norway and Russia have not been
proven in sufficient detail to warrant a finding of criminal guilt on those
particulars of count two. He was not |
1164 |
. 
