WIRECARD-​Scandal: Lawsuit against Auditors – What did Ernst & Young testify?

Form Class Ac­tion Law­suit » Team » FAQ »

The Wirecard AG business model

The fact that Wir­e­card AG fals­i­fied bal­ance sheets and de­frauded in­vestors and in­vestors is now well known. The bubble burst ab­ruptly on June 25, 2020, when news of the “dis­ap­peared” 1.9 bil­lion euros that were sup­posed to be in es­crow ac­counts be­came pub­lic. Why did no one no­tice for so long? And most im­port­antly – how did Wir­e­card do it?

How did Wirecard’s fraud model work is a ques­tion that not only ag­grieved in­vestors are ask­ing. It was a com­plex sys­tem that, ac­cord­ing to some ex­perts, only ex­is­ted to laun­der money. When deal­ing with the Wir­e­card scan­dal, one must look at the sys­tem as a whole.

Basic information on the “Acquirer” business model

As an in­ter­me­di­ary pay­ment ser­vice pro­vider, known in the trade as an “ac­quirer,” you for­ward money from the buyer to a mer­chant. The ac­quirer re­ceives a claim against the buyer’s credit card com­pany and is li­able in the event of non-​payment. So if the buyer or his credit card com­pany doesn’t (can’t) pay, an ac­quirer still has to pay the mer­chant. To min­im­ize the risk for it­self, the ac­quirer re­tains col­lat­eral in such a trans­ac­tion, which it does not pay out to the mer­chant un­til pay­ment is made in full. This is usu­ally only a small part of the pur­chase price. A small ex­ample: For a pur­chase of 100€, the mer­chant ini­tially re­ceives only 95€ from the ac­quirer, since 4€ serve as se­cur­ity and 1€ is the busi­ness fee. As soon as the ac­quirer re­ceives the money from the credit card com­pany, he pays out the re­main­ing 4€ to the merchant.

The special Feature of the Wirecard Business Idea

Since the mar­gins on pro­cessing such trans­ac­tions are re­l­at­ively low, a pay­ment pro­cessor needs many trans­ac­tions to have a prof­it­able busi­ness model. Pre­sum­ably for this reason, Wir­e­card has used busi­ness part­ners to ex­pand pro­cessing in non-​EU coun­tries. Ac­cord­ing to the cur­rent state of the in­vest­ig­a­tion, it can be as­sumed that the trans­ac­tions were largely fic­ti­tious. Wir­e­card provided the busi­ness part­ners with the al­leged cus­tom­ers and the tech­no­logy for pay­ment pro­cessing in or­der to ap­par­ently re­ceive the fee for the al­leged trans­ac­tions. This (fic­ti­tious) fee, the third-​party part­ners trans­ferred via de­tours to the al­leged es­crow accounts.

The idea of the said es­crow ac­counts was in­tro­duced from 2015, prob­ably be­cause at that time the crit­ical in­quir­ies re­gard­ing the busi­ness model ac­cu­mu­lated. Pre­vi­ously, Wir­e­card had re­por­ted the (al­leged) fees as re­ceiv­ables on its bal­ance sheets.

Us­ing the pro­ceeds of the in­ven­ted re­ceiv­ables, it was pos­sible to make com­pany ac­quis­i­tions. Con­spicu­ous thereby the in­creased prices. This was pre­sum­ably done in or­der to chan­nel money out of the com­pany and back into the Group. The in­vest­ig­a­tions there­fore as­sume that this method was prob­ably also used by Wirecard’s “senior man­age­ment” to en­rich them­selves and to em­bel­lish the Group’s bal­ance sheets.

The role of the auditors Ernst & Young

The on­go­ing law­suits by ag­grieved in­vestors of Wir­e­card AG are dir­ec­ted against the aud­itor Ernst & Young GmbH Wirtschaft­s­prü­fungs­gesell­schaft. Based on the state of the in­vest­ig­a­tion to date, we as­sume that a prop­erly work­ing aud­itor should have dis­covered the fraud and thus the dam­age to in­vestors years ago. In ad­di­tion, EY faces ac­cus­a­tions of hav­ing act­ively helped to shape the busi­ness model, or at least of hav­ing covered it with full knowledge.

Join the com­munity of plaintiffs against the aud­it­ors Ernst & Young here and claim your lost in­vest­ment in Wir­e­card AG as damages.

How could EY not have been aware of this?

The ques­tion arises as to how EY was able to is­sue the last audit cer­ti­fic­ates without lim­it­a­tions. How could it be that the de­fi­cits iden­ti­fied by KPMG re­mained hid­den from EY’s aud­it­ors in the years before?

After ex­amin­ing the legal situ­ation, Schirp & Part­ner comes to the con­clu­sion that the cer­ti­fic­ates could prob­ably not have been is­sued without a breach of an auditor’s audit­ing ob­lig­a­tions. EY has ap­par­ently cer­ti­fied credit bal­ances in trust ac­counts of up to 1.9 bil­lion euro in re­cent years without ob­jec­tion, al­though no suf­fi­cient evid­ence could have been provided, as the banks con­cerned deny the ex­ist­ence of the ac­counts. Ac­cord­ing to our ana­lysis, this does not cor­res­pond to the du­ti­ful pro­ced­ure of an auditor.

What can affected Investors do?

We be­lieve that EY is eco­nom­ic­ally the bet­ter claimant for ag­grieved in­vestors. The fu­ture of Wir­e­card is writ­ten in the stars; the in­solv­ency ap­plic­a­tion was filed on June 25, 2020. There­fore, any­one who wants to en­force dam­ages should con­sider whether he or she wants to take ac­tion against Wir­e­card at all.

We see a pro­ceed­ing against the aud­itor EY as the bet­ter al­tern­at­ive. The lat­ter has audited and cer­ti­fied the an­nual fin­an­cial state­ments of Wir­e­card AG for many years and claims to have en­countered in­cor­rect bal­ance con­firm­a­tions for the first time in June 2020? In our opin­ion, this is not com­pat­ible with the audit­ing du­ties of an aud­itor. Only in March of this year, in a sim­ilar case, the Ger­man Fed­eral Su­preme Court (Bundes­gericht­shof – BGH) had ruled against an aud­itor for in­cor­rectly is­sued audit cer­ti­fic­ates and awar­ded the in­vestor damages.

We have already filed a first class ac­tion. If you are also in­ter­ested in a class ac­tion against the aud­itor EY, please con­tact us. As con­tact per­sons for your fur­ther pro­ceed­ings, you can con­tact at­tor­ney Dr. Wolfgang Schirp, spe­cial­ist at­tor­ney for bank­ing and cap­ital mar­ket law and at­tor­ney Dr. Susanne Schmidt-​Morsbach, spe­cial­ist at­tor­ney for bank­ing and cap­ital mar­ket law and spe­cial­ist at­tor­ney for com­mer­cial and cor­por­ate law.

Form Class Ac­tion Law­suit » FAQ » Team »

How to reach us

Schirp & Part­ner Recht­san­wälte mbB
Leipzi­ger Platz 9
10117 Ber­lin, Germany

Phone: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 0
Fax: +49 (0)30 – 327 617 17
E-​Mail: mail@​schirp.​com

Legal Advisory Label

Please take note that we can not answer consultatively here. If you happen to request that anyways, you may give us full power of attorney. For that, simply download this form, sign it and return it to us.

News

Update in the Daimler emissions scandal – Hundreds of thousands of vans will now be asked for a software update

The fact that the Sprinter, Vito and Vi­ano mod­els are also af­fected by the emis­sions scan­dal has been known since 2019. Now Daimler AG has ap­par­ently suc­ceeded in de­vel­op­ing the soft­ware up­dates re­quired by the KBA and hav­ing them ap­proved by the KBA. As it be­came known, hun­dreds of thou­sands of Daimler drivers can now […]

Rückforderung der Ausschüttungen beim MCE-​Fonds 02

Jetzt ist nach MCE 09, MCE 04 und MCE 05 mit dem MCE 02 der vierte Fonds der Fonds­gruppe, die aus insges­amt acht Fonds (MCE 01, 02, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09 und 10) be­steht, mit Aus­schüt­tung­s­rück­for­der­ungen an der Reihe. In­solv­en­zver­wal­ter der Fonds sind Recht­san­wälte der Kan­zlei Görg. Er­st­mals hat aber nicht der In­solv­en­zver­wal­ter selbst […]

POC 2: AAA-Informationen

Lesen Sie die Ab­stim­mung­sem­p­fehlun­gen des Ak­tions­bundes Akt­iver An­leger­s­chutz e.V. zu den Beschlussan­trä­gen der Geschäfts­führung und neh­men Sie bitte an der Ver­sammlung per­sön­lich teil, oder lassen Ihre In­teressen durch den AAA ver­tre­ten. Quelle: Aktionsbund

Update: Final Report of the WIRECARD Committee of Inquiry

For more than a year, we have been deal­ing with the Wir­e­card col­lapse and its consequences.

Weiter aufpassen bei POC !

Am 2. Juli hat­ten wir an dieser Stelle aus­führ­lich über die ak­tuell laufende Beschlussfas­sung berichtet. Außer­dem haben wir al­len uns bekan­nten An­legern per­sön­lich em­pfohlen, die Beschlüsse abzulehnen. Ob aus diesem Grund oder aus an­deren Gründen: Ed­mund Kock­artz und Klaus Chris­tochow­itz haben bei al­len Fonds (wie es aus­sieht nur nicht beim POC 1) die Beschlussfristen verlängert […]

Mandantenfang bei den POC-Fonds

Die An­leger der POC-​Fonds (Proven-​Oil-​Canada-​Fonds) er­hal­ten im­mer mal wieder Post von Recht­san­wäl­ten, die mit ver­schiedenen Ar­gu­menten im­mer noch für die Ein­reichung von Prospek­thaf­tung­sk­la­gen wer­ben. Weil wir von un­seren Mit­gliedern je­w­eils ge­b­eten wer­den, hierzu Stel­lung zu neh­men, tun wir das hier­mit ein­mal grundsätz­lich. Bei den POC-​Fonds kom­men als An­s­pruchs­gegner die Gründungs­gesell­schafter und die Prospek­theraus­ge­berin in Frage. […]

All Announcements »

Copyright © Schirp & Partner Solicitors | Legal Notice | Privacy Statement
Zum Seitenanfang