Home › Lawyer sought › Draft 3: criminal complaint against judge Groß
DRAFT — NOT TO BE SUBMITTED PERSONALLY. Working draft for examination, supplementation and signature by an authorised lawyer. Anyone may lodge a criminal complaint without a prescribed form (§ 158 StPO) — given the significance of a complaint against a serving judge, however, it is strongly recommended that this draft be reviewed by a lawyer before submission.
[Letterhead of the instructed lawyer’s practice]

To Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office)

— Central Office for Combating Corruption / Department for Offences in Public Office —
Turmstraße 91, 10559 Berlin

Subject: Criminal complaint and request for prosecution (Strafantrag) against VRiLG Groß, Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I)
on suspicion of perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung, § 339 StGB) and forgery of documents in public office (§§ 267, 348 StGB)

Complainant: Dmitry Bagrash, currently at JVA Heidering (Heidering correctional facility), prison registration no. 327/25-7
Suspect: VRiLG Groß, presiding judge, Landgericht Berlin I (Berlin Regional Court I)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I hereby lodge a criminal complaint and, where required, a request for prosecution (Strafantrag) against the judge named in the subject line on suspicion of perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung) under § 339 StGB and forgery of documents in public office under §§ 267, 348 StGB in connection with the criminal proceedings conducted against me (file reference 522 Ks 5/23, LG Berlin I).

I. Facts

1. Subsequent substantive amendment of the final judgment. On 30.07.2025 — 373 days after pronouncement of the judgment of 22.07.2024 and after it became formally final — the suspect issued an order described as a “correction order”, inserting a complete list of the criminal provisions applied into the operative part of the judgment for the first time. In my view, this is not correction of an obvious clerical error but a substantive amendment of the basis of the decision after it became final.

2. Incorrect or omitted information on legal remedies. According to my account, I was given no proper information on legal remedies satisfying § 35a StPO in respect of either the judgment of 22.07.2024 or the correction order of 30.07.2025. According to a declaration in lieu of oath, the copies documented by the defence contain discrepancies indicating a subsequent alteration. I request forensic examination of the original documents.

3. Refused forwarding of legal remedies. According to my account, contrary to § 306 para. 2 StPO the suspect failed to forward my supplement to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision) of 20.01.2025 without delay to the competent appellate court. By letter of 03.02.2025 (Annex 13_F2), I applied to Kammergericht Berlin (Berlin Higher Regional Court) to require the suspect to forward it without delay and suggested opening an investigation on suspicion of obstruction of prosecution in public office (§ 258a StGB).

4. Isolation from legal assistance and communication. According to my own account, after pronouncement of the judgment I was prohibited from any communication with the Jewish community for several months (see Annex 1_F3 to 33_F3). According to the declaration in lieu of oath of 15.01.2025 (Annex 9_F2), the court registry officer of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) was instructed not to record my supplement to the grounds of the appeal on points of law (Revision), referring to a “direct instruction from the Regional Court (Landgericht)”, which I suspect came personally from the suspect.

II. Legal assessment

1. Perversion of justice (Rechtsbeugung), § 339 StGB. Under § 339 StGB, a person commits an offence by perverting the law in conducting or deciding a legal matter to the benefit or detriment of a party. The case law requires an elementary, manifest breach of the law (see BGHSt 32, 357; BGHSt 40, 169). I submit that the described chain of decisions — subsequent amendment of the final judgment, omitted information on legal remedies, refused forwarding of legal remedies and practical isolation from any legal assistance — could, viewed as a whole, constitute such an elementary breach.

2. Forgery of documents in public office, §§ 267, 348 StGB. If the suspected subsequent alteration of the information on legal remedies is confirmed, criminal liability under § 348 StGB or § 267 StGB could arise. Forensic examination of the original documents is expressly suggested.

3. Inducing subordinates to commit an offence, § 357 StGB. If it is confirmed that the instruction to the registry officer of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court) came personally from the suspect, possible criminal liability under § 357 StGB would also need to be examined.

III. Evidence offered

IV. Request

I request that an investigation be opened against the suspect and that the documents identified be forensically examined. I am available for enquiries through my defence counsel.

[Place, date]
Lawyer (or Dmitry Bagrash, if lodged personally)
⬇ Download as a Word document (.docx)