Oberstaatsanwalt (Senior Public Prosecutor) Klaus-Michael Wachs (OStA)

The same prosecutor — two proceedings

Senior Public Prosecutor Klaus-Michael Wachs is one of the central figures in the Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin (Berlin Prosecutor General's Office), responsible for proceedings involving political extremism and Islamist terrorism (Division 17). In this capacity, he also represented the Berlin prosecution service in the examination of the terrorist attack on Breitscheidplatz — he was examined as a witness before the parliamentary committee of inquiry on 08.11.2019.

The very prosecutor who is documented in the inquiry report as a source of “imprecise transmission of information” and who repeatedly acted on the principle “I assumed that others would arrange what was necessary” became the lead prosecutor and de facto architect of the entire investigative strategy in my proceedings.

Six episodes at a glance

Each row follows the same order: allegation — supporting evidence — provision/criterion — alternative hypothesis — what is missing to rule it out — who can clarify it. The detailed account with sources is linked in the last column.

What the Breitscheidplatz report says about Wachs

After the terrorist attack on the Berlin Christmas market (19 December 2016), the Abgeordnetenhaus von Berlin (Berlin House of Representatives) established a parliamentary committee of inquiry. The extensive report (Drucksache 18/4000, 1226 pages) mentions Wachs several times — by no means in a positive context.

• Wachs acknowledges that his instructions may have been unclear or open to misunderstanding.
• He relies on his own assumptions (“I took that for granted”) rather than specifically formulated, verifiable instructions.
• On central questions of state action, he refers to gaps in his memory: “I no longer remember whether I said it that way”.

Incorrect dating and the principle “I assumed that…”

On page 517 of the report: a police officer (K-1) informed Wachs on 1 August 2016 by telephone of Anis Amri's arrest. Wachs said he would prepare a note on this. A corresponding note exists in the files — but is dated 3 August 2016. Wachs explained that he had “probably got the date wrong”.

The same method in the Bagrash proceedings

• A ban on further police questioning — although I had voluntarily handed over passwords and offered composite sketches.
• Suppression of the “intelligence-service lead”: the possibility of a targeted provocation was discounted as “implausible”.
• Active obstruction of my pursuit of the Revision (appeal on points of law): a communication ban, refusal of access to the files, failure to forward submissions.
• Immediate isolation after the judgment — without a legal basis. 116 days without contact with the Jewish Community.

This page deliberately does not name who exactly spread that claim or when — that would be a separate factual assertion not substantiated here. It records only that Dmitry Bagrash assumes such a disinformation campaign exists and regards it as a plausible response to his announced complaint against OStA Wachs. This is an understandable but unproven hypothesis — not a documented finding.

Four episodes before the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice)

The following points come from my supplements to the grounds of the Revision, recorded at the court registry. In its order of 07.05.2025, the 5th Criminal Senate expressly recorded that these submissions were before it and were considered in its deliberations. Their full wording has been available on this website since August 2026.

• A threat of new criminal proceedings during my final statement. When I raised the seizure of a banner in September 2021 and announced my intention to publish the documents about it, the prosecutor at the hearing interrupted me and threatened new criminal proceedings. The presiding judge did not intervene. — Supplement, Part 2, of 28.02.2025 · § 258 Abs. 2 StPO, Art. 103 Abs. 1 GG
• Prohibition on inspecting my own mobile phone on 21.04.2023. The detective was not permitted to show me the device; I was only allowed to view the message histories. As a result, finding a witness who could provide exculpatory evidence took months rather than five minutes — my defence lawyer and I had to find her ourselves. — Supplement, Part 1, of 20.01.2025 · § 147 StPO, § 160 Abs. 2 StPO
• The witness we found ourselves does not appear in the judgment. She had travelled in my vehicle with one of the two people and, despite repeated references to her, was neither questioned by the police nor summoned by the prosecution. Her account refuted a central assumption of the prosecution. The judgment does not mention her at all. — Supplement, Part 8, section I.2 · §§ 160 Abs. 2, 244 Abs. 2 StPO
• No investigation of the surveillance in Warsaw. In November 2022, I was under surveillance during an opposition congress. I informed the Staatsschutz (state security police), handed over my vehicle for examination and supplied a photograph of the suspect. The responsible officer confirmed the seriousness of the situation in court — yet no investigation was initiated. — Supplement, Part 8, section I.3 · § 160 Abs. 2 StPO · Newly documented: The surveillance was already described publicly on 12.11.2022 — a month before the arrest, in a post from Jabłonna near Warsaw tagging seventeen congress participants. See “What was public before the offence”
• Six assertions in the prosecution's closing address. In my final statement, I addressed them individually: the supposedly amateur construction against my ten years of professional experience; the incorrect date of the fire involving my Smart; the dismissal of the vehicle tampering after Warsaw; the interpretation of my wish to join the Ukrainian army as extremism; a reference to a hacked messenger attributed to me that I never made; and the claim that I constantly use a Russian expression that does not exist in that form. — Supplement, Part 1

A refusal existed in writing — just not for me

During pre-trial detention, authorising calls to the religious community’s telephone number fell within the prosecuting authority’s remit. The sequence is fully documented in Case 3:

• 30.08.2024 — a refusal is issued. I learn of it only on 12.11.2024, more than ten weeks later, and even then only indirectly. Until then, I am told that there is nothing.
• Oral refusals without a written decision, conveyed by the social service. Without a written decision, there are no reasons, no instructions on remedies and no time limit — and therefore no remedy.
• Prohibition on handing it over. Even after the decision became known, handing it over to me was prohibited; once again, I was informed of the prohibition only orally.
• Inspection of correspondence to the community. My letter was returned to me with the requirement that I send it unsealed to the prosecuting authority for inspection. I refused.
• 140 days between the first application on 05.08.2024 and the first visit by a rabbi on 23.12.2024 — authorisation was given the day before the announced start of the hunger strike.

Art. 4 GG · § 119 StPO · § 53 StVollzG — Full Jewish Community chapter in the chronology

Three statements, three rebuttals

On 23.01.2024, at JVA Moabit (Moabit correctional facility), I filed a criminal complaint against criminal police officer Weiß for giving false testimony in court, recorded by the registry of Amtsgericht Tiergarten (Tiergarten Local Court). The complaint identifies three specific points. Each leads to the prosecutor at the hearing:

• Who initiated the questioning on 21.04.2023. In response to the presiding judge’s question, the witness replied that I myself had wanted it. According to my account, OStA Wachs orally initiated it during the detention review hearing on 01.03.2023.
• The mobile phone. The witness testified that he had shown me my phone with a message thread open and that I had replied that it was “kindergarten”. In fact, I had asked him to show me other threads — and he stated that OStA Wachs had prohibited him from showing me others. It was only to that statement that my remark referred.
• The timing of my information. The witness testified that, before 21.04.2023, I had not informed the police about the recovery of my data and the unauthorised access to my phone. The information had already been provided on 28.12.2022, and my lawyer repeated it to the responsible criminal police officer two to three weeks before the questioning.

I named lawyer Piet Mumm and lawyer Dr. Ingo Risch as witnesses. According to my account, the consequence of these statements was that I had to spend months searching myself for the exculpatory witness, instead of finding her through my phone within minutes.

First prevent it — then hold what was prevented against me

On 02.04.2024, I filed an application for a declaratory finding, recorded by the court registry. It describes a sequence that, according to my account, recurred three times in the same form:

Added to this is a fourth statement from the same record: at the detention review hearing on 01.03.2023, it was reportedly stated that no applications from me were pending — although applications had been filed and remained unanswered.

A statement that can be checked against a single document

According to my account, the prosecutor at the hearing repeatedly submitted during the proceedings that I had previously committed politically motivated offences, citing the proceedings concerning the seizure of the “Putin is a Killer” banner — stating that they had been discontinued because the Embassy of the Russian Federation had not filed a request for criminal prosecution.

In fact, the proceedings were discontinued under § 170 Abs. 2 StPO, meaning for lack of sufficient suspicion of an offence. Moreover, following my then defence lawyer’s review of the file, it contains no mention of the embassy — apart from the address as the location of the notified rally.

What the prosecuting authority must have known about the motive

The Delegation of the Russian Federation named Unkremlin e. V. twice before the OSCE Permanent Council: on 23.09.2021 (PC.DEL/1483/21, meeting no. 1336) and on 07.04.2022 (PC.DEL/526/22, meeting no. 1367 — document distributed on 08.04.2022). Such statements are distributed to all participating States by the OSCE conference service; Germany is a participating State. The second statement is dated sixteen days before the point at which, according to the findings in the judgment, the device is said to have been placed.

Regarding the individual: this section is not about whether Wachs knew of the statement at the OSCE, but about the prosecuting authority as an institution having had to assess this publicly available information before treating the act as a reaction to a personal conflict rather than as part of a conflict documented for months and observed at the foreign-policy level.

How Wachs and Feoktistov are connected

→ To the full Feoktistov dossier

Prof. Dr. Heinemann-Grüder: travelled from Bonn twice, questioned on none of the matters to be proved

Prof. Dr. Andreas Heinemann-Grüder, a political scientist in Bonn and long-standing adviser to German government bodies on Eastern European affairs, has provided expert support for my public activities since 2021. He visited me several times in detention; the visits were monitored by the police. As I perceived it, he repeatedly offered the officers present comprehensive information about my activities. To my knowledge, he was never questioned as a witness during the entire investigation.

He was summoned to the trial at the initiative of my defence lawyers. Asked about the frequency of contact between March and May 2022, he took out his mobile phone in the courtroom, opened the message history and told the court that we had communicated practically every other day.

At the second hearing, the witness appeared with a lawyer, answered a single question and spent no more than about five minutes in the courtroom in total. He was not questioned on any of the matters for which he had been summoned: neither the coordination of my public activities, nor their content, nor their legality. These are precisely the circumstances that concern the construction of the motive.

Another event from the same declaration: During my second police questioning in April 2023, I asked to be allowed to search my seized mobile phone for possible witnesses and leads to possible perpetrators. The criminal police officer questioning me prohibited this and, as I recall, told me that this was based on an instruction from the public prosecutor’s office.

Two statements from pre-trial detention: an allegation of interception and a prevented visit

On 10.05.2024, I make a statement on my application for a declaratory finding of 02.04.2024, recorded by the recording officer at Amtsgericht Tiergarten (in JVA Moabit). According to my account, OStA Wachs initially authorised only one call via a landline, although he knew that my wife had no landline — knowledge that I suspect he obtained from intercepting her telephone calls. I go on to describe a prevented visit by my acquaintance Christoph Wiedemann from Hamburg, with whom the LKA (State Criminal Police Office) had previously arranged everything, as well as repeated remarks by OStA Wachs during trial hearings that Mr Wiedemann was interfering with him — in my assessment, because he could have constructed UnKremlin as a “terrorist organisation”.

A week later, on 17.05.2024, I apply on the record for permission to contact my family via Skype under § 119a StPO — expressly waiving any objection to the conversations being monitored or intercepted. I stated that my sole concern was to establish contact with my then minor son after a year and a half in pre-trial detention.

The criminal complaint of 02.09.2026 — and why it does not belong in Berlin

On 02.09.2026, I filed a criminal complaint with Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Berlin against Oberstaatsanwalt Klaus-Michael Wachs and Presiding Judge Groß of the Landgericht (Regional Court).

In the same complaint, I pointed out that the Berlin authority is itself a party to the proceedings in question: it brought the charges, it argued against my release in the sentence-enforcement proceedings, and one of the persons named in the complaint is an Oberstaatsanwalt at a Berlin authority. A review by this institution would be a review of its own case. I therefore suggested referring the matter to a Generalstaatsanwaltschaft outside Berlin.

The alternative hypothesis — and what is missing

Since 08.09.2026, an expanded framework has applied to all personal dossiers in this project: each finding is accompanied by the most benign plausible explanation of the event and an indication of the evidence that is missing. For the six individual events, this is already set out point by point in the table above. This section additionally summarises what applies to all six collectively.

The same framework in eight quotations → · Groß dossier — already revised point by point

Sources & original documents