English Translation

8 - 12 - but the project broke down, so that Zeisel's auction was approved without restriction by the Oberlandratsamt in October or November l94l. Immediately after the auction date, Schafranek, on behalf of Dr. Rudolf, had opened to the Zeisels that the premises could not be opened to him. In the meantime, Brauner became interested in some of Zeisel's co-acquired machines; he wanted to bring them with his own profit to the old iron dealer Wenzel Daněk, in order to consider himself harmless for a damage allegedly done to him earlier by Danek. To this end, both he himself and at his instigation Schafranek approached Zeisel immediately after the auction day with the request that Zeisels should leave the machines to a prospective customer to be taught by them. They let it through that then the purchase authorization was given prospectively. Although Zeisel had promised the machines elsewhere, he nevertheless met this demand, because he believed that only in this way he could obtain the approval of the acquisition of the property by the Aryanization Department. Thus Zeisels sold the machines to Daněk by means of the mediation of Schaf- ranek and Brauner. As a purchase price, Schaf- ranek and Brauner agreed with Zeísel 38,000 K and with Daněk 48,000 K, in which they told DaněK that the 48,000K would come in full to Zeisel zúgute, insofar as they did not have to pay taxes and other taxes. Daněch paid 48,oo0 K to Brauner and this one 38.00o K to Zéisel. The remaining 10,000 K was retained by Brauner; 4000 or 5000 K of it he gave to Schafranek, the rest he kept to himself. The value of the machines was well below 48.00o K; in the amount of the difference Daněk is damaged. This situation is determined by the admissions of the essentially competent defendants and the witness cases Sochor, Zeisel and Danek IV. Appreciation. All 3 defendants were the bearers of ordinary services in the criminal sense of civil servants (StGB § 359). In the cases of Machala, Gulde and Pauser, seizure was guilty of serious passive bribery (St GB § 332) and in the case of winter relief of embezzlement (StG § 246).