News

Cum-cum transactions continue to raise questions for banks, investors and prosecuting authorities years after they took place. The central questions are whether withholding tax credits were lawfully claimed and what follows when the tax treatment of a transaction is subsequently reassessed. Those affected need to identify any duty to correct earlier tax returns in good time and carefully assess the criminal-law implications. The article examines recent court decisions, the limits of voluntary disclosure and the issues they raise for the defense.

In mid-September 2026, the Airsoft case is back in the headlines. An international investigative project called FakeTrade, initiated by DER SPIEGEL and continued by partners such as the Journal de Montréal, portrays an Israeli software company that allegedly supplied trading platforms with technology for years—platforms on which investors believed they were trading while their money was actually being diverted. Bavaria’s Central Office for Cybercrime (ZCB) in Bamberg has been investigating cases of this kind for years. A former Airsoft managing director was convicted there in June 2026.

May a survivor of the Second World War describe the former Bavarian Minister-President Franz Josef Strauß as a “Nazi murderer” and “Hitler’s contract killer”? This question is before the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) in Karlsruhe for decision in proceedings 1 BvR 2489/24, which attorney Dr. Tobias Rudolph brought in November 2024. The case touches on fundamental questions concerning the tension between freedom of expression and the honour and dignity of the deceased. The forthcoming decision could therefore mark a milestone in the further development of the post-mortem personality right.

The problem of a defendant facing a judge who has previously stated in a written judgment that he or she is convinced of the guilt of the current defendant is discussed under the heading of “prejudice”. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 27.01.2023 (Ref. 2 BvR 1122/22) brought the discussion in Germany to a temporary climax – but certainly not to its end. The case is currently pending before the European Court of Human Rights under application no. 25095/23.