Vienna court acquits Heinz-Christian Strache in FPÖ life-insurance breach-of-trust trial

Roughly 940,000 euros were paid into the policy over its lifetime. The original 2007 arrangement had been concluded during the tenure of Strache's predecessor Hilmar Kabas and would have paid out to the Wiener FPÖ as the beneficiary, with Strache's surviving relatives entitled to the sum only in the event of his death.

Prosecution: a self-dealing transaction

The prosecution characterised the 2014 arrangement as an "In-sich-Geschäft" — a self-dealing transaction — because Strache had signed in two capacities: as the new beneficiary and as a representative of the party, which had been the previous beneficiary. Prosecutors accused the defendants of having acted "eigenmächtig und an der Partei vorbei" — on their own authority and behind the party's back — and argued that the policy had been "komplett an der Partei vorbei geschleust".

In his closing submission the prosecutor stated that "Aufgrund des durchgeführten Beweisverfahrens besteht an der Schuld der beiden Angeklagten kein Zweifel" and described Strache's denial as "eine reine Schutzbehauptung". The prosecution further maintained that it had "niemals angedacht gewesen, Strache eine Pension aus dem Parteivermögen angedeihen zu lassen".

The prosecutor also characterised Strache's resignation following the Ibiza affair as "selbst verschuldetes Fehlverhalten" rather than an insured event, contending that the endowment payment had therefore not been triggered by any contingency the policy had been designed to cover.

Defence: party-internal safeguard

In his defence, Strache insisted the 2007 transfer had taken place with Kabas's consent and that a 2014 board decision of the Viennese party leadership had authorised the extension of the policy to include the endowment scenario. He told the court that "Da ist niemand gezwungen worden" and pushed back against the prosecution's framing: "Das ist ja alles an den Haaren herbeigezogen".

Strache also framed the policy as a personal safeguard. He said the cover had given him "den Rücken frei" and allowed him to act "leichterfüßiger". Asked about the 2014 side agreement, he explained that he had been "zu blauäugig" and had not obtained written confirmation of the underlying party decision.

Pressed on the absence of documentary evidence for a formal party resolution, Strache suggested that the party's senior figures had operated under the principle that "jedes Schriftl ist a Giftl" — every piece of paper is poison — and that he had relied on the meeting minutes kept by others. He described the contemporary lack of recollection among former colleagues as "enttäuschend, weil ich diesen Menschen jahrzehntelang vertraut habe".

The co-defendant's account

The co-defendant, referred to in court documents as H., acknowledged having initiated the idea of an insurance policy so that the party chairman would be financially protected in the event of an abrupt end to his political career. However, he testified that "Inhalt des jeweiligen Versicherungsvertrages ist nicht mein Thema gewesen" and that he had not read the 2014 amendment in detail before signing it.

H. also alleged that he had felt pressured into signing the amendment by Strache and an FPÖ attorney. Strache rejected this account, replying that the notion was implausible because the party establishment "hätten mich durch Sonne und Mond geschossen" if he had tried to dictate terms to them.

During the evidence phase the presiding judge remarked to the co-defendant: "Ich habe es ihnen am ersten Tag schon gesagt, ganz überzeugen tun sie mich nicht." Several witnesses, including FPÖ leader Dominik Nepp and European Parliament member Harald Vilimsky, confirmed that discussions about some form of personal cover for Strache had taken place, but none could corroborate a specific 2014 party decision on the beneficiary change.

Witness testimony

Nepp testified that he had first learned of the life-insurance policy in 2015 and had only known in general terms that it was intended to protect Strache against a sudden end to his political career. Vilimsky likewise recalled conversations about an insurance arrangement without being able to confirm the formalities.

Strache also used his testimony to recount what he described as persistent threats against his life, including alleged assassination plans by the Islamic State (IS) supporter Mohamed Mahmoud, whom he said had planned to "liquidate" him at Vienna's Viktor-Adler-Markt. He further referenced "einen 86-seitigen Autobomben-Akt" from his time as Vice-Chancellor, saying the policy had been designed to provide for his mother and children in the event of his death.

Personal threats cited

On the morning of the verdict Strache told reporters he had "vollstes Vertrauen in die unabhängige Gerichtsbarkeit". His defence team had argued throughout that the side agreement was a routine party-internal arrangement consistent with a long-standing protective arrangement for the chair and that Strache had never invoked the agreement when the endowment sum was eventually disbursed.

According to testimony referenced by Strache's attorney, witnesses had confirmed that the protection was designed for a possible end to his political career and that Strache had never relied on the contested "Vereinbarung" when claiming the insurance payout. The prosecution had countered that such a payout to a sitting party chairman was not an "interner Versicherungsfall".

Political context and aftermath

The acquittal marks another court victory for Strache in a string of legal proceedings linked to the later stages of his political career. The case is separate from the criminal matters arising from the 2019 Ibiza video, which precipitated his resignation as Vice-Chancellor and as FPÖ chairman.

Neither the verdict nor the underlying proceedings affect the criminal-law presumption of innocence for any third parties. The public prosecutor's office has the statutory right to appeal the acquittal, meaning the legal status of the ruling may change in the coming weeks.

Strache left the courtroom without commenting further on the substance of the ruling. The FPÖ's national leadership had not issued a public statement by the time of writing. The Wiener Landesgericht für Strafsachen did not release additional documentation beyond the verdict announcement.

The case had attracted significant media attention in Austria because it intersected with broader questions about internal party financing at the Wiener FPÖ and about the post-Ibiza legal exposure of senior FPÖ figures. Thursday's ruling closes one chapter of those inquiries, although related civil-law questions concerning the insurance payout may remain open.