Strache Trial: Verdict Expected in Life Insurance Case

At the center of the so-called "life insurance" case is the question of whether Strache, as chairman at the time, had himself unlawfully registered in 2014 as the beneficiary of a life insurance policy taken out by the Vienna state FPÖ. The prosecution speaks of a "self-dealing transaction," since Strache signed in this matter both as the new beneficiary and as a representative of the party — that is, of the previous beneficiary.

What the case is about

The prosecution bases its argument on the fact that, at the time of the contract amendment, Strache acted both as the new beneficiary and as an authorized representative of the previously beneficiary party. From the public prosecutor's office's perspective, this constitutes a classic "self-dealing transaction," in which a person stands on both sides of an agreement and thereby obtains a financial advantage.

The defense has contested the charges over the course of the proceedings so far. It argues, among other things, that the change in the beneficiary arrangement was lawful and that Strache acted within the scope of his organizational powers. Details of the defense line are expected in the final phase of the proceedings.

Strache was federal party chairman of the FPÖ from 2006 to 2019 and Vice Chancellor of Austria from 2017 to 2019. After the "Ibiza affair" became public in May 2019, he resigned from both positions. The "life insurance" case is one of several court follow-up proceedings arising from his time at the top of the party.

Proceedings and possible sentencing ranges

The Vienna Regional Court heard witnesses and experts over several hearing days during the proceedings. The focus was on the internal decision-making processes of the Vienna state FPÖ regarding the use of the insurance policy, as well as on the question of which bodies should have decided on the change to the beneficiary arrangement.

Relevant under criminal law is the charge of breach of trust under Section 153 of the Austrian Criminal Code. This provision criminalizes the misuse of entrusted assets if this results in damage to another's property. The public prosecutor's office considers this offense fulfilled because the party is said to have suffered a financial disadvantage as a result of the change in beneficiary.

In the event of a conviction, the law provides for fines or imprisonment of up to three years, and in particularly serious cases up to ten years. Should there be a guilty verdict, any possible diversion would also have to be examined — that is, the possibility of an out-of-court resolution, for example through a fine or community service.

Outlook on the hearing day

Court observers expect that the judge on Wednesday, following closing arguments by both sides, will immediately announce whether a verdict will be delivered on the same day or whether a date will be set for the pronouncement of the verdict. A postponement would therefore be the exception rather than the rule.

Beyond the outcome of the proceedings, the "life insurance" case remains politically relevant because it connects to Strache's long period of leadership in the FPÖ. The party has repeatedly distanced itself in recent years from its former chairman. Should the court hand down a guilty verdict, this could further intensify the debate over how the party deals with former officeholders.

APA will be reporting live from the trial on Wednesday. Coverage of the key procedural steps and the verdict will be provided in real time. According to APA, the reading time for the reporting is set at just a few minutes.