He had the impression that it was not desired that CA Immo should be awarded the contract. “But I don’t know what went wrong. It was no longer a coincidence, it was clear to us that now it had been laid, ”said the witness to the judge. Furthermore, he contradicted the arguments of Grasser and the co-accused lobbyist Walter Meischberger that the necessary purchase price of at least 961 million euros in Vienna had whistled the sparrows off the roofs.
At the time, Fromwald said on the witness stand that CA Immo was clearly ahead after the first round from “informal information”. He did not know who had brought this “informal information” to CA Immo. He also stayed in a survey by lawyer Norbert Wess, the second lawyer of the main accused ex-finance minister Karl-Heinz Grasser – whereupon Wess accused the witness of informally obtained information being illegal information. The public prosecutor then intervened that the question should not be admitted in this way.
Worn or snapped?
Judge Marion Hohenecker also – after the questioning – asked what Wess admitted that one had to differentiate whether a secret agent would pass on information or someone would pick up something where. Fromwald remained calm despite the intensive questioning by Wess. “I’m not a German professor,” he said once when Wess asked him to interpret a phrase.
After the first round, the team at CA Immo, which had tried to win the contract, was unsure that something was not going wrong, said Fromwald. In the second round, they wanted to bid 960 million euros and then add 100,000 euros. He couldn’t describe exactly why that was done. Perhaps it would be useful, said one of the participants at the last meeting. In the first round they offered 922 million euros, then in the second round 960 million euros because this amount was covered by Bank Austria, but there could have been more, about 970 million euros, because of that the pouvoir was said to have been, so the former board.