 |
the assets, in particular the
patents belonging to the Hoechster Farbwerke, from the American sequestrator,
and after the end of the war, in return for his expenses, placed them again at
the disposal of our constituent Company. Personality alone was the decisive
factor in that situation, when, according to English and American laws of war,
all contractual relations with the enemy were automatically severed by entry
into the war.” |
| In a communication dated 26 September 1940 [NI-2746, Pros. Ex.
1035] to the Reich Ministry of Economics, Farben reported:
|
| |
“ * * * Only during recent
years since about 1937, when the danger of a new conflict became more and more
apparent, did we take pains to improve our camouflage measures, especially in
the endangered countries, in such a way that they should prove adequate even in
the case of an armed conflict and at least prevent immediate
seizure.” |
| That letter was written by the Central Finance Department of Farben
in Berlin following discussions to improve the system of camouflaging various
sales companies of Farben in Latin America, concerning which defendants von
Schnitzler and Ilgner were generally informed. While there were other
considerations prompting camouflage of holdings in foreign countries, the
evidence clearly shows that a controlling reason, particularly in the years
1938 and 1939, was the prospect of war. Thus, in a memorandum dated 2 October
1940, Kuepper of the Farben Legal Staff, who testified personally before this
Tribunal, said: |
| |
“After the victorious end of
the war a long lasting political appeasement can be expected. But distinct
possibilities cannot be a reason for camouflage any longer in view of the
reasons against it, especially of a political nature.” [NI-8646, Pros.
Ex. 1038.] |
| Pursuant to the policy of camouflaging its assets abroad, Farben
resorted to sham transactions to accomplish such purpose. An excellent example
of the technique employed is set forth in the opinions filed in Standard Oil
Co. v. Markham, 64 F. Suppl. 656 (District Court, S. D. New York),
and Standard Oil Company v. Clark, 163 F. (2d) 917 (Circuit Court
of Appeals, Second Circuit, September 22, 1947) wherein these important Federal
Courts of the United States held that the transactions reached at the Hague
Conference in September of 1939, between representatives of Farben and
representatives of the Standard Oil (referred to as the Jersey group) were
“sham transactions designed to create an appearance of Jersey ownership of
property interests which, nevertheless, continued to be regarded by the parties
as IG owned.” The United States courts referred to specifically found:
|
1290 |
. 
