Landgericht München I: investment brokers must refer to previous convictions of the system initiators Pitter-Kilfitt and Wittke in the investment fraud case Alpina-Fonds/Icon-Gruppe, Oberhaching, the district court Munich I has a belonging to the club Procon intermediate investment company for breach of disclosure obligations to pay damages sentenced to the injured investors Alpina (Judgement of 14 February 2011, case no 35 O 25839/09). According to the court would have the plaintiff investor to the relevant criminal history of the icon initiators Klaus-Jürgen Pitter-Kilfitt and Anouschka Wittke must be noted, were convicted in 2002 by the Munich District Court for the illegal banking transactions (criminal offense under § 54 KWG) to several months imprisonment . The district court justified that the decision as follows:
has an investment intermediaries to all interested parties information that may have considerable importance for its entry decision, sincere and carefully, in particular to supply complete. This duty is the defendant to 3) (acting through their representatives, to complain to 4)) do not comply.
The defendant has to 4) the plaintiff against the sentences against the defendants to 1) and 2) above, as it this, as he claims, not then known.
The criminal conviction of the manager of the management company as the director and the trustee because of - as here - relevant offense that is appropriate to restore confidence in the reliability of the system as a whole, but also the confidence in proper performance of management duties and to shake the obligations under the trust agreement is, in the opinion of the Court a notice that is of significant importance for any investment decision. The mediator can not withdraw to the position that the crime had nothing to do with the disputed asset, but in connection with a predecessor company were, investors were not the actions harmed directly, and therefore the information for the Alpina 5 Investment meaningless was. Just this assessment, the agent just left the prospective investors, after having first set all relevant information.
Irrelevant is whether the defendant 4) itself actually has been aware of the Judgments. It would certainly be the duty of defendant to 3 have been) to inform itself and the active agent, especially since the trial lasted since April 2000 and searches were carried out. The defendant 3) itself does not deny that it was aware of the criminal judgments. Ultimately, that does not work because the defendant to 3) the judgments in any case should have known.
In highly speculative investment is the mediator according to the prevailing case law already required to verify the integrity of the initiators (OLG Köln, Judgement of 18.06.1999, Az 3 U 106/98). Given the enormous returns in spite of minimal house services to the applicant with plant K 24 have been predicted, is assumed here that have the participation of the intermediary also shown to be highly speculative needs, so that it the increased scrutiny regarding the defendant's duty to 1) and 2) met.
If the defendant to 4) personally said that he had to rely solely on the information in the "Procon" and not even more informed, so it already shows that the manager of the defendant to 3) which is not fully complied with. "
The decision of LG München I is not yet final.
