.png)
Reiner Fuellmich: A Conviction, Unanswered Questions, and a Letter to Germany
Updated: 3 minutes ago
Why I have asked the German authorities to explain the prosecution, imprisonment and reported treatment of the lawyer behind the Corona Investigative Committee.
UPDATE — 22 October 2026: The German Embassy in Canberra has responded to my formal inquiry. I have subsequently contacted Australia's Ambassador to Germany seeking guidance concerning the human-rights questions raised. An automatic reply has directed me to the Australian Embassy's Deputy Head of Mission, Matt Alexander. The correspondence and next steps are documented in the update at the end of this article.
There is something deeply troubling about the possibility that a person might be imprisoned not simply because they have broken the law, but because their work has challenged those exercising political or institutional power. Equally important is that a person's prominence as a critic of government should not place them beyond legitimate investigation or accountability for wrongdoing.
Both possibilities demand careful examination. Neither can be resolved by choosing in advance which side we are inclined to believe.
This is the tension I have encountered in examining the case of German lawyer Dr Reiner Fuellmich (also spelled Füllmich), who rose to prominence through his involvement in the Corona Investigative Committee and is now serving a criminal sentence in Germany. I am concerned that political hostility towards his work may have influenced how he has been treated. But I recognise that suspicion, even when sincerely held, cannot substitute for verifiable evidence.
Recent allegations concerning his imprisonment have added urgency to those concerns. On 18 October 2026, I sent a formal request for information to Germany’s Ambassador to Australia, Her Excellency Beate Grzeski, and copied three official contacts within Lower Saxony's justice and prison administration. The letter asks 16 questions drawn from court documents, German law and disputed accounts of his treatment.
I am publishing the questions and the record of my email so that readers can examine for themselves what has been asked, what has been established and what remains unresolved.
Who is Fuellmich, and why does this case matter?
Long before the COVID-19 pandemic, German lawyer Dr Reiner Fuellmich had established a legal career representing consumers and challenging major financial institutions, particularly in disputes involving banking practices, property financing and alleged misconduct affecting ordinary borrowers and investors. His involvement in questioning powerful institutions did not begin in 2020, and I believe that history is important to understanding both his later work and why so many people took an interest in it.
His earlier legal activities are documented in German reporting stretching back more than two decades. In 2002, Der Tagesspiegel reported that Fuellmich was representing approximately 4,500 borrowers, according to his own account, in disputes arising from property-financing arrangements. His professional standing also attracted recognition.
In 2009, WirtschaftsWoche published an assessment of leading investor-protection lawyers, with a report in Faktor magazine identifying Fuellmich's firm among Germany's top 20 in the field. The selection considered factors including litigation results, professional experience and the quality of legal representation.
A particularly significant example of his legal work came in 2011, when Fuellmich represented clients in a successful compensation case against HypoVereinsbank, by then part of UniCredit. The case concerned a couple who had purchased an overpriced property after being misled about its anticipated rental income. The Cologne Higher Regional Court found the bank liable because of its close relationship with the intermediary involved, and Germany's Federal Court of Justice rejected the bank's challenge to that ruling, making the outcome final. The case was reported by both Süddeutsche Zeitung and Germany's independent consumer organisation Stiftung Warentest.
His continuing challenges to Deutsche Bank also attracted attention. In 2015, German public broadcaster ARD's Report Mainz examined allegations that the bank had made misleading representations during litigation involving property investors, including claims advanced by Fuellmich. Deutsche Bank rejected those accusations. In 2017, Deutsche Bank's own shareholder-meeting records published Fuellmich's formal objections concerning the bank's management, litigation risks and alleged conduct before German courts. These documents establish that he was publicly challenging the bank's leadership, although they do not establish the truth of every allegation he raised.
Not every allegation Fuellmich pursued was established, nor should his involvement in litigation be confused with proof of wrongdoing by those he challenged. Nevertheless, he entered the COVID-19 debate with substantial experience in consumer litigation, reported professional recognition, documented legal successes and years of publicly challenging major financial institutions. His involvement with the Corona Investigative Committee was therefore not the beginning of his interest in institutional accountability, but followed an established professional history of confronting powerful financial interests on behalf of individual clients.
It was against this background that Fuellmich became internationally known through the Corona Investigative Committee, a privately organised body established in 2020 to question COVID-19 policy decisions and interview medical professionals, researchers, lawyers and commentators. Its hearings provided a platform for often controversial criticisms of lockdowns, vaccination policies and restrictions on civil liberties.
Similar efforts to independently examine pandemic policies later took shape in Australia through COVID Under Question and the subsequent COVID Inquiry 2.0, organised with the involvement of One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts and parliamentarians from other political parties. These hearings similarly brought together medical practitioners, scientists, lawyers and affected individuals to question aspects of the pandemic response, including medical regulation, informed consent and the doctor–patient relationship.
While differing in their organisation and scope, these initiatives provided alternative forums for examining decisions with significant consequences for ordinary citizens. Importantly, neither Fuellmich's committee nor the Australian non-parliamentary hearings carried the formal authority of a judicial or parliamentary inquiry, and testimony presented at such hearings should not automatically be mistaken for independently verified findings.
Nevertheless, the committee attracted a substantial international audience. For many, it provided an opportunity to hear questions and perspectives they felt were not being adequately considered within mainstream public discussion, particularly at a time when governments were exercising extraordinary authority over ordinary life. The claims and arguments presented deserve to be examined individually, rather than accepted or dismissed wholesale.
Nearly six years on, some questions have been answered more clearly, while others continue to be debated and reassessed as further evidence emerges. Whatever one thinks of the committee's work, Fuellmich's later criminal prosecution deserves to be described accurately rather than reduced to a contest between supporters and critics.
I also want to acknowledge that I followed the Corona Investigative Committee during the pandemic, particularly the conversations led by Fuellmich. Those discussions were more than simply another source of information during an extraordinary period. They played an important part in shaping how I came to question official narratives, examine competing evidence and consider the extent to which institutional decisions were being made in the public interest.
That experience has continued to influence my writing and my willingness to challenge the ideas, policies and assumptions gradually permeating our institutions and wider society. I remain grateful for the opportunity the committee provided to hear perspectives that were often absent from mainstream discussion, and I recognise the considerable time and effort Fuellmich and others devoted to that work.
However, appreciation should never become unquestioning loyalty. I can recognise Fuellmich's professional history and the considerable contribution I believe the committee made to public discussion without placing either beyond scrutiny. Indeed, if those experiences helped strengthen my commitment to questioning authority and examining evidence, it would be inconsistent to abandon those principles when considering the conduct of someone whose work I appreciate.
The discernment I developed during that period continues to inform how I approach difficult questions today. I can acknowledge the important influence Fuellmich's work has had upon my thinking while examining his present circumstances with the same commitment to truth, fairness and accountability that I expect of the institutions he challenged. For me, those positions are not contradictory; they are inseparable.
What Germany’s courts have established
On 24 April 2025, the Göttingen Regional Court convicted Fuellmich of two counts of Untreue—a German offence involving breach of entrusted financial duties—in a case concerning €700,000 associated with the committee. He was sentenced to three years and nine months in prison. The Federal Court of Justice rejected the substantive appeal on 17 March 2026, correcting only part of the confiscation decision, and the conviction became final. The court also upheld the decision not to credit five months of pretrial detention against his sentence. These findings are confirmed in the Göttingen court’s official case record and notice of finality, with the appeal identified as case 6 StR 359/25.
The detailed 134-page judgment deserves attention because it records facts sometimes omitted from brief accounts. Written loan agreements existed for transfers of €200,000 and €500,000, and the trial court assumed in Fuellmich’s favour that he initially intended to repay the funds. The court nevertheless concluded that the money was meant to remain available for the committee and that its private use breached entrusted financial duties and caused a loss. An intention to repay, it held, did not erase the offence.
The judgment also describes the later sale of property associated with Fuellmich and records that approximately €1.158 million in proceeds was paid to a lawyer who held mortgage-security interests, while approximately €186,000 was paid to Fuellmich’s wife. His representatives dispute aspects of those arrangements. The distribution of proceeds is documented; alleged wrongdoing by another party is not established by that fact alone, and any later dispute would not automatically invalidate findings concerning the earlier transfers.
This is not an argument to disregard the conviction. It is a reason to examine what the judges found, what the defence contested and which separate financial questions may still be capable of independent scrutiny.
Questions that remain beyond the conviction
Other issues arise from the procedure and execution of the sentence. Fuellmich was detained in Germany in October 2023 following his removal from Mexico. His representatives allege that immigration procedures were used to facilitate his return without a conventional extradition hearing. The trial judgment discussed the allegation and said that even a potentially unlawful deportation would not, in its view, warrant sentence mitigation. That is different from an independent ruling by Mexican authorities establishing the lawfulness of the removal itself.
There is also the unusual decision to withhold credit for five months of his pretrial detention. The Federal Court of Justice upheld the measure because of conduct it regarded as deliberate obstruction. The question for public scrutiny is not whether an accused person may endlessly frustrate proceedings; it is how courts distinguish misuse of process from a persistent and sometimes unpopular exercise of defence rights. The official criminal-code provision, section 51, and the Federal Court of Justice's appellate ruling of 17 March 2026 (6 StR 359/25) provide the appropriate starting points.
Supporters have additionally questioned why Fuellmich remains in custody after a period they believe meets the two-thirds threshold. Under section 57 of the German Criminal Code, however, conditional release depends on more than the passage of time, including consideration of public safety and the prisoner’s consent. I have not obtained an authoritative calculation of his sentence or a reasoned decision on any application, and I will not describe his continued imprisonment as unlawful on the basis of supporters’ arithmetic alone.
Finally, Fuellmich and his representatives allege improper political or intelligence-service influence. The trial judgment addressed parts of the defence’s account. I have not independently authenticated the purported internal dossier cited by supporters. If credible material exists connecting prosecutorial decisions to an improper political purpose, it should be examined; it should not be assumed either genuine or false because of its political implications.
The immediate concern: conditions after the October transfer
On 8 October 2026, advocate Seba Terribilini reported that Fuellmich had been transferred from JVA Bremervörde to JVA Lingen, ostensibly because of prison-capacity considerations. Her subsequent 16 October interview with Charles Kovess, joined by Peter Koenig, included allegations of a rushed departure, a prolonged journey in restraints, poor access to clothing and personal items, and cold, damp, potentially mould-affected accommodation. Concerns about his health and access to ordinary prison facilities were also raised.
The German group AXION Resist published a statement on 14 October attributing further details to Fuellmich, his wife and defence representatives. Its later source notes identify a reported application by a lawyer dated 9 October. These are identifiable advocacy and defence accounts, but they do not constitute an independent prison inspection, medical finding or official admission.
I have not independently verified the alleged cell conditions. That uncertainty should not be filled with either an assumption that the allegations are true or an assumption that the authorities must have acted appropriately. It warrants documentary clarification, including the stated reasons for the transfer, the suitability of his accommodation, access to belongings and legal representation, and the availability of medical assessment or independent oversight.
Germany’s obligations under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights, prohibiting torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, remain relevant regardless of the offence for which a person has been convicted. The UN Nelson Mandela Rules also provide internationally recognised guidance on humane conditions in custody. A conviction limits liberty under law; it does not extinguish human dignity.
The letter sent to the German authorities
At 12:15 am on Sunday, 18 October 2026, I sent an email headed “Formal Request for Information — Dr Reiner Fuellmich | Judicial Accountability and Urgent Prison Welfare Concerns” to the German Embassy in Canberra. The email was copied to the Lower Saxony Ministry of Justice, the administration of JVA Lingen and the Ministry’s Press Office. The attached formal letter was prepared on 17 October and contains 16 numbered questions.
The questions concern the present prison conditions, the disputed handling of financial arrangements and property proceeds, the return from Mexico, the five-month detention-credit decision, the official sentence calculation and the allegations of improper political influence. The immediate request is for acknowledgement and an indication of referral or welfare review within five working days, followed by a substantive reply to the broader questions within approximately 21 calendar days, or an indication of when one may be available.
The covering email states:
“While I acknowledge the judicial decisions already made in Germany, I believe there remain important questions concerning procedural fairness, proportionality, independent oversight and the treatment of individuals in state custody.”
I have also notified the Embassy that the correspondence will be made publicly available through FCP Australia and circulated among subscribers and social-media readers. That disclosure is not intended as a threat. It provides a public record of the questions and gives the authorities a fair opportunity to explain their decisions. Relevant replies will be published or accurately summarised, subject to appropriate treatment of confidential or personal information.
The documentary record available to readers
I am making two documents available with this article. The first is the complete formal letter, including the 16 questions and links to supporting records. The second is a PDF copy of the covering email, showing the time of dispatch, the recipients and the filename of the attached letter. That email printout establishes a record of sending; it does not establish that any addressee has opened, read or acknowledged the message.
DOCUMENT 1 — Formal letter to the German Embassy, prepared 17 October and sent 18 October 2026 (PDF)
DOCUMENT 2 — Copy of sent covering email, 18 October 2026 (PDF)
The correspondence was sent on 18 October 2026, and I have requested an initial response concerning Fuellmich's welfare within five working days. I will record any acknowledgement or substantive response here as it becomes available.
Political prisoner? A concern requiring evidence
I am conscious that supporters describe Fuellmich as a political prisoner, and I understand why his outspoken opposition to official COVID policies raises suspicion about possible retaliation. But the distinction between a strongly held conviction and a demonstrable conclusion matters. Germany’s courts have established criminal liability in the financial case. A finding that his prosecution was politically engineered, or that current conditions are intended as political punishment, would require additional reliable evidence.
Political motivation and criminal wrongdoing are not logically exclusive; neither are a valid conviction and subsequent mistreatment. Each allegation must be tested on its own evidence. The Council of Europe’s definition of a political prisoner provides a useful framework for considering politically motivated or discriminatory imprisonment, but applying that label conclusively to an individual requires findings that this investigation has not yet established.
Readers need not endorse Fuellmich’s pandemic claims, or accept all the statements of those advocating for him, to ask whether procedural rules were fairly applied and whether his present detention meets the standards expected of a democratic state. Similarly, readers need not dismiss the courts or accuse individual officials of bad faith merely to support public scrutiny.
In Bad Precedents Outlive Bad Actors, I argued that the principles protecting individual liberty must remain meaningful even when the person invoking them holds views we reject. That principle applies equally here: a person's controversial opinions cannot determine whether they are entitled to procedural fairness and humane treatment.
Why an Australian should be asking
In Australia, we experienced extraordinary exercises of government power during the COVID-19 period: restrictions on movement and gathering, conditions of employment and decisions affecting people’s family and social lives. Those decisions deserve scrutiny according to the law and evidence, just as claims of governmental wrongdoing do. We do not improve public accountability by assuming every extraordinary power was unlawful, or by assuming that the presence of a lawful process answers every question about its exercise.
My concern is not with Germany alone. The standard I am asking its institutions to meet is one I would apply to Australian authorities: decisions affecting liberty should be explainable, independently reviewable where appropriate, and sufficiently visible for the public to distinguish documented reasons from speculation. Rules on paper matter, but so do the discretionary judgments made under them and the mechanisms that hold those judgments to account.
I recently explored related questions about legal safeguards, conscience and proportionality in Little Practical Choice – The Jayden Beale Case. Although the legal circumstances differ substantially, both matters remind us that the exercise of government power warrants careful scrutiny of the evidence and the reasons given.
This concern is not new to my writing. In The Check We Never Built, I examined how meaningful public accountability depends upon citizens having access to the information necessary to evaluate decisions made in their name. That principle becomes especially important when the State exercises its power to deprive someone of liberty.
It returns me to three questions that repeatedly arise in my reporting: discretion, accountability and public visibility. Who exercised authority? Who can independently test whether it was exercised lawfully and proportionately? And what can an ordinary person inspect in order to form a responsible judgment?
Justice, mercy and the dignity of the person
My approach is shaped by the Christian conviction that every person bears the image of God. That dignity is not conferred by political agreement, popularity or a court’s verdict. It belongs to the accused, the convicted, the complainant, the witness and the public official alike. It does not dissolve the obligation to answer for wrongdoing; nor does wrongdoing relieve the state of its obligations towards the individual.
That conviction requires restraint as well as courage. I ought not declare a man innocent against the evidence merely because I sympathise with his opposition to government policies. Nor should I assume that an institution has acted justly simply because a formal judgment exists. Truth, justice and mercy are not competing loyalties.
“He has shown you, O man, what is good; And what does the Lord require of you But to do justly, To love mercy, And to walk humbly with your God?” — Micah 6:8 (NKJV)
In its original setting, the passage addresses the character of a life lived faithfully before God, rather than offering a shortcut around evidence or legal procedure. For me, it is a reminder that justice requires both a willingness to confront potential abuse of power and the humility to correct ourselves when the facts do not support our suspicions.
I hope the German authorities respond, particularly about Fuellmich’s welfare.
Whatever they establish, the questions and supporting documents will remain available for public examination.
Thank you for reading.
God Bless.
Mark
Investigation Update — 22 October 2026
German Embassy responds; Australian diplomatic inquiry follows
On 22 October 2026, I received a response from the German Embassy in Canberra concerning my formal request for information about Dr Reiner Fuellmich.
The response came from Holger Krämer, Minister Counsellor and Deputy Head of Mission, who confirmed that Ambassador Beate Grzeski had asked him to reply.
Mr Krämer advised that the matter fell outside the Canberra Embassy's responsibilities because it had no direct connection to Australia, and referred further inquiries to the relevant German justice authorities.
I appreciate the Embassy's acknowledgement and clarification of its role. However, the response did not address the substantive questions concerning Fuellmich's prosecution, procedural safeguards, eligibility for conditional release or, most urgently, the allegations about his conditions of imprisonment at JVA Lingen.
Those questions remain outstanding with the competent German authorities, who were copied on my original correspondence.
Correspondence with Australia's Ambassador to Germany
Following the German Embassy's response, I wrote on 22 October to Her Excellency Natasha Smith, Australia's Ambassador to Germany, seeking guidance on appropriate avenues for independent human-rights scrutiny.
My correspondence acknowledged that Fuellmich is a German national and that Australia has no ordinary consular responsibility for German citizens imprisoned in their own country. I was not requesting political interference in an independent judicial process or asking the Australian Government to determine his innocence.
Rather, I sought advice about mechanisms through which concerns regarding procedural fairness, independent oversight and humane treatment in custody might appropriately be examined.
I attached both my original 16-question letter and the response received from the German Embassy in Canberra.
An automatic reply from Ambassador Smith's office subsequently advised that she was out of the office and directed correspondence to Matt Alexander, Deputy Head of Mission at the Australian Embassy in Berlin. I have followed up through that channel.
At this stage, neither the German Embassy's response nor the automatic reply from the Australian Embassy provides a substantive determination of the allegations raised. Those matters continue to require independent verification.
I will maintain a dated public record of relevant correspondence and any further responses, while ensuring that the authorities concerned have a fair opportunity to clarify their positions.
The purpose remains unchanged: to seek verifiable answers about the exercise of state authority, the protection of individual dignity, and the principles of discretion, accountability and public visibility.
God Bless
Mark.
Comments