The 35-year-old Iranian who embezzled 7,000 euros from a transfer for a fellow countryman and shot the man when he demanded the money back was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The decision is not final.
In their two-hour deliberations, the jury decided by a vote of 6:2 in favor of the crime of murder and once morest grossly negligent homicide. The client’s integrity was seen as a mitigating factor. The surviving widow was awarded more than 23,000 euros in compensation and funeral costs.
During the two days of the trial, the main question was how the fatal shot came regarding. The prosecutor spoke of an intentional homicide. However, the defendant argued that he had first been threatened with a weapon and had simply defended himself. In a scramble the shot would have been fired. He continued to plead not guilty. It is still unclear to this day who owns the weapon, as the production numbers and proof marks on the pistol were drilled out. And it was also unclear how exactly the financial transaction came regarding, since the accused told a different version than the wife of the murdered man.
Borrowed money once more and once more
The defendant – represented by Anna Mair (Astrid Wagner law firm) and Amir Ahmed (Sommerbauer Dohr law firm) – ran the printing press and an advertising company in Simmering. According to the public prosecutor’s office, in the fall of 2022 the debts grew beyond his head. He was then no longer able to pay the last rent or leasing installments for his Audi Q5. In the spring of 2023, he repeatedly borrowed money from acquaintances – as recently as March 2023 it was 12,000 euros – or collected money from his customers even though he did not provide any service.
The man’s defense denied that their client had such high debts. He was self-employed and there were only a few liabilities due to business. Therefore there is no motive for murder. The fatal shot was an accident, which is why the defense pleaded negligent homicide as a result of a fight.
In May he met the future victim (38) and his wife via a Telegram channel. The couple also came from Iran, lived in Carinthia and wanted to transfer money to their homeland with the help of the 35-year-old. Due to the global embargo once morest Iran, international transfers are not possible through official channels. It is therefore common to conduct financial transactions using the so-called hawala system. Hawala means something like changing or transferring money in Arabic. The system is based on trust. This is not regarding directly transferring physical money, but rather regarding transferring a debt.
Different information
From then on, the defendant’s statements differed from those of the murdered man’s wife as the only direct witness. She reported to the jury (chaired by Christina Salzborn) that the 35-year-old should have accepted an amount of 33,000 euros from the couple, which was intended for the victim’s brother in Iran. To do this, the 35-year-old’s family in Iran would have had to pass this amount on to his brother. The 35-year-old, on the other hand, claimed that he, rather than the two of them, wanted to send money to Iran through the couple in order to invest in his business in Vienna.
A meeting was initially arranged for the financial transaction on May 6th in the accused’s printing shop. Since this “transfer” was not confirmed in Iran, a new meeting was arranged for the next day. The financial transaction should have been finalized on May 7th, at least that’s what the 35-year-old told the couple. While the men were on the phone with their respective relatives in their home country, the victim’s wife is said to have handed the accused the 33,000 euros, which he stashed in a drawer. But once more the financial transaction did not take place; the public prosecutor’s office assumes that the 35-year-old only faked the transaction in order to get the large amount of money.
Victim demanded money back
“My husband said to me that the man seemed so suspicious to him,” the victim’s wife said through tears. The 38-year-old then demanded his money back. The defendant suddenly became very angry and said: “Don’t you trust me?” said the witness. When the couple counted, there was only 26,000 euros left in the drawer. In the meantime, the accused may have paid off part of his debts at the back door with the 7,000 euros.
The 38-year-old demanded his money several times and the 35-year-old print shop operator kept putting him off. At first he said he would get the man he had given the money to back, but he apparently mightn’t reach him anymore. He then promised to get the money from home. The couple sat in the shop for a long time and waited.
According to the woman’s statement, the print shop owner suddenly grabbed the gun, smiled and aimed it at the 38-year-old. Then the shot was fired. The older man grabbed the 35-year-old by the collar and a scuffle ensued before the man collapsed and died of a bullet in the chest. “I was covered in blood and I didn’t know how it happened,” said the wife, whose interview had to be interrupted due to the trauma. The 35-year-old wanted to grab her and drag her into the back room. “I no longer had control of my feet. I was frozen,” said the woman. She grabbed another business card punch and hit the 35-year-old on the head with it. Only when a passer-by looked through the window did he let go of her and flee. The wife ran into the street in blood-stained clothes and screamed for help. The 35-year-old was arrested two hours later. “I dream regarding it every night,” said the wife.
Inconsistencies following examining DNA and traces of smoke
In the proceedings, the defense relied primarily on the inconsistencies that emerged from DNA and smoke traces. According to a smoke trace expert from the Federal Criminal Police Office, it can no longer be clearly stated who pulled the trigger on the Walther-brand murder weapon because traces of smoke were also found on the victim’s sleeve and jacket. According to the expert, it is “more likely” that the defendant fired a shot, but the victim must have been in the immediate vicinity, which would indicate the scuffle mentioned by the defendant. “This is where the (examination, note) method reaches its limits,” said the smoke trace expert on the witness stand.
However, no other traces of smoke were found on the dead man’s clothing, as is usually the case when contaminated by carrying a pistol, the expert said. No matter how well a weapon is cleaned, “something always falls out.” The 38-year-old might not have pocketed the weapon and brought it with him to the meeting. However, the accused also had traces of smoke in the pockets of his jacket.
DNA traces are also not clear
The DNA traces on the weapon also did not show a clear picture. The DNA evidence expert, Christina Stein, only found traces of the victim on the magazine page – i.e. inside the weapon. The defense argued that this indicated that the pistol belonged to the 38-year-old and that he must have handled the magazine beforehand. The public prosecutor’s office assumes that the magazine must have fallen to the ground during the events because there was an unfired cartridge on the ground. The fact that a cartridge fell out of the magazine was also confirmed by the shooting expert Manuel Fließ. The 38-year-old is said to have reached for the magazine “in his death agony,” according to the prosecutor.
On the trigger of the weapon there was once more a mixed mark of victim and perpetrator, although the trace of the former was more pronounced. DNA from both men was equally found on the handle and the slide. The claim that a shot was fired during the scuffle was also refuted by the shooting expert Fließ. Although the weapon was damaged, in tests hitting the loaded pistol, shaking it violently or dropping it failed to trigger a shot.
The origin of the weapon might no longer be traced to this day because all identification numbers were removed. The wife insisted that her husband did not bring a weapon to the meeting. This version is supported by the fact that Walther cartridges were seized months before the crime in a case of property damage in Simmering. A company’s solar panel was shot at. However, the couple lived in Carinthia and the defendant in Simmering.
