The Case of Dr. Reiner Füllmich
(by Denise Borer)
In the case of Dr. Reiner Füllmich—once an internationally active attorney, human rights advocate, and founder of the Corona Committee—all the elements of a modern judicial scandal converge: political instrumentalization, selective prosecution, and a remarkably superficial ruling by a regional court that has abandoned its duty to administer justice in favor of making an example.
On May 30, 2025, Füllmich was sentenced by the Regional Court of Göttingen to three years and nine months in prison—on charges of alleged breach of trust. Yet anyone who takes the time to read the judgment will quickly realize: this case had little to do with the rule of law. It was the endpoint of a process that, from the beginning, was driven by a single goal—politically and socially eliminating an inconvenient figure through the means of criminal law.
What Is This Really About?
The official accusation claims that Füllmich personally enriched himself on two occasions through donations and committee funds. However, upon closer scrutiny, this accusation collapses.
The payments in question were secured through internal agreements, authorized by a co-shareholder at the time, and documented as repayable loans. There were tangible securities worth millions, no private luxury expenses, and no attempt to abscond. Füllmich repeatedly offered trust solutions and was willing to clarify every detail.
In truth, this case, upon thorough analysis, reveals itself as a classic internal power struggle: tensions arose among the co-founders of the Corona Committee. Füllmich was locked out of accounts, denied access to IT systems, and those who now present themselves as victims took over both the organization and its funds after his exclusion. A textbook example of political dismantling—with the involvement of intelligence services and criminal justice.
The Göttingen court did not act as a neutral arbiter in this conflict; instead, it served as an enforcer of a decision made long before the trial ever began. The selection of witnesses alone speaks volumes: those testifying against Füllmich were precisely those with economic and organizational motives against him—while exonerating witnesses, such as his legal advisors, were largely ignored or discredited.
Over 50 motions for evidence from the defense were summarily rejected, including critical material: statements regarding fund allocation, emails about gold storage, trust offers. Meanwhile, the verdict relied almost entirely on the testimonies of individuals in direct competition with Füllmich—those who had systematically pushed him out of the organization.
The Sentence Speaks for Itself
The severity of the sentence also raises eyebrows. Despite the absence of proven damages or demonstrable intent to enrich himself, the court declared this a “particularly serious case”—a legal term used solely to justify harsher punishment. This verdict is not grounded in legal logic; it reflects instead a societal craving for dissociation and degradation.
When Reiner Füllmich was returned to Germany under highly questionable circumstances, he was immediately placed in pretrial detention—where he remained for weeks. This alone raises serious concerns. Yet even more alarming: the months spent in custody were not credited toward his sentence. Such a denial is plainly unlawful, as § 51 of the German Penal Code clearly requires pretrial detention to be credited. This was sheer arbitrariness—a signal that this was never about justice, but about demonstrating power.
The court claimed he had attempted to evade justice—simply because he had been residing in Mexico at the time. In reality, Füllmich was publicly accessible, legally represented, willing to return, and in regular contact with his family and colleagues.
Adding to the absurdity, the court justified the use of handcuffs and shackles with an alleged flight risk—despite no attempted escape or any genuine security concerns. Füllmich was cooperative, non-violent, and in regular extradition custody. This dual restraint was nothing short of arbitrary, publicly humiliating, and utterly indefensible—both legally and morally.
Why Such Harshness?
Clearly, because Füllmich dared to defend himself. The judgment even accuses him of “lacking insight” and “procedural obstruction.” It appears the court has forgotten that in Germany, one has the right to defend oneself against criminal charges.
A Case with Far-Reaching Implications
Reiner Füllmich is a figure who dared to ask uncomfortable questions during the COVID era. He organized hearings with international experts, highlighting abuses of power and policy failures during the pandemic. That such a person is not only criticized but systematically dismantled is nothing new—but it is something that no democratic society should accept.
This case lays bare a principle that goes far beyond the individual: those who challenge the political and media mainstream are not merely attacked—they are legally dismantled. The accusations often follow a familiar pattern: financial crimes, embezzlement, fraud—charges designed to inflict maximum reputational damage, even if they ultimately prove baseless. In such cases, the process itself becomes the punishment.
What Must Happen Now
Whether through appeal or, if necessary, by international courts, this ruling will not withstand serious scrutiny. But the damage has already been done—both to Füllmich and to the integrity of the rule of law, not to mention public trust in a justice system that has shown itself all too willing to become a political tool.
For this case is about far more than just the fate of a single man. It raises a fundamental question: Who is still allowed to dissent in this country—and at what cost?
This verdict must not stand.
Version in German: „Strafrecht als Waffe und ein politisch motiviertes Urteil“