Home › Responsible parties › Prosecutor Lösing
Negative list

Prosecutor Lösing

Prosecutor (group leader), Berlin Prosecutor General’s Office — ref. 163 AR 392/26

This page concerns a single signed letter in the chain of my criminal complaint of 2 September 2026 against Presiding Judge Groß and senior prosecutor Wachs. The person is named only in connection with what they signed, assessed by the scheme fact – evidence – norm – significance, with an alternative hypothesis for each point. The page gives my assessment and replaces no disciplinary or judicial finding. The presumption of innocence applies.

1The complaint against a prosecutor of the Prosecutor General’s Office goes to the authority subordinate to it

On 2 September 2026 I filed a criminal complaint against Presiding Judge Groß and senior prosecutor Wachs and expressly asked for it to be examined outside Berlin, because Wachs had prosecuted me as an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office. The letter of 29 September 2026, signed by Prosecutor Lösing, reads in full:

„Ihre Eingabe vom 2. September 2026 habe ich zuständigkeitshalber der Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin zur weiteren Bearbeitung zugeleitet […]. Ein Aktenzeichen der Staatsanwaltschaft Berlin ist hier noch nicht bekannt.“ — Anlage 224_F2
§ 145 GVG (Übertragung auf eine andere Staatsanwaltschaft) · §§ 146, 147 GVG (Weisung und Aufsicht) · § 172 Abs. 1 StPO · Nr. 2 RiStBV
Significance: The Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office is supervised and directed by the Prosecutor General’s Office (§ 147 no. 3 GVG) and must follow its instructions (§ 146 GVG). After the forwarding, the complaint against an official of the Prosecutor General’s Office lies with an authority that office can instruct.
Alternative hypothesisForwarding to the locally and substantively competent prosecutor’s office is the regular statutory route; the Prosecutor General’s Office does not investigate such cases itself.
What is missingA single word on my request for transfer outside Berlin – and who decides on it.

227 days of silence – the letter bears the date of my enquiry

Until 29 September 2026 I had no acknowledgement of receipt. On 29 September 2026 at 01:25 I asked in writing about receipt, reference number and whereabouts (Anlage 234_F2). The letter bears the same date and the subject “Eingaben vom 2. und 29. September 2026”. It reached me on 7 October 2026 – 35 days after the complaint (F2-210).

Art. 17 GG · Nr. 9 RiStBV (Mitteilung an den Anzeigenden)
Significance: Notice of what happened to the complaint came only after I asked.
Alternative hypothesisThe forwarding may have been ordered internally earlier and only communicated after my enquiry.
What is missingA date of forwarding and a reference number.
Sources: Anlage 224_F2 (transcript of the letter of 29 Sep 2026; scan to follow) · Anlage 234_F2 (enquiry of 29 Sep 2026) · F2-210 · chain: complaint Groß/Wachs · next: chief senior prosecutor Scheinichen. This page gives the account and legal assessment of Dmitry Bagrash.