Chief senior prosecutor Scheinichen | Responsible parties

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 Prosecutor General’s Office itself decides that the complaint against its prosecutor stays in Berlin

By letter of 14 October 2026 (produced 19 Oct, received by me 21 Oct 2026), signed “Scheinichen, Leitende Oberstaatsanwältin”, the Prosecutor General’s Office states that the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office is handling the case under 232 Js 4326/26. On my request for transfer:

„Allein die Tatsache, dass sich das Verfahren gegen Justizbedienstete des Landes Berlin richtet, bietet für sich genommen keinen Anlass, das Verfahren an eine auswärtige Staatsanwaltschaft abzugeben.“ — Anlage 241_F2

§ 145 GVG (Übertragung auf eine andere Staatsanwaltschaft) · §§ 146, 147 GVG (Weisung und Aufsicht) · § 172 Abs. 1 StPO · Nr. 2 RiStBV

Significance: I did not base the request on the persons being Berlin justice officials, but on the fact that senior prosecutor Wachs prosecuted me as an official of this very office and that any complaint against a discontinuation (§ 172(1) StPO) lands with it again. The letter does not address that reason.

Alternative hypothesisThe office may refuse transfer; there is no right to transfer under § 145 GVG. The phrase “für sich genommen” may mean the further circumstances were also examined and considered insufficient.

What is missingEngagement with the reason actually given: that the deciding authority is the authority of the person complained against.

2The dates

The letter is dated the day after my press release of 13 October 2026; it was produced five days later and reached me after seven (F2-221). My complaint against this decision went to the Senate Department for Justice on 21 October 2026 – and from there to the Prosecutor General’s Office for comment (F2-242).

§ 147 GVG · Art. 19 Abs. 4 GG

Significance: I do not claim a connection with the press release; I record the dates.

Alternative hypothesisThe dates may result from ordinary office routine.

What is missingAny notice from the Berlin Public Prosecutor’s Office itself – none to date.

Sources: Anlage 241_F2 (scan of the letter of 14 Oct 2026) · F2-221 · F2-242 · before: Prosecutor Lösing · after: Grenz-Dorenburg, Senate Department · chain: complaint Groß/Wachs. This page gives the account and legal assessment of Dmitry Bagrash.