The Case of Uhlandstraße 170
by Emanuel Klimt
When I received the first documents regarding Sven Elvis Appelt, I initially thought the case was just another neighborhood or business dispute of the kind handled daily in German courts.
Two years later, I have a mountain of files before me, consisting of affidavits, chat logs, photos, court orders, witness statements, and personal correspondence.
At the center of it all are Sven Elvis Appelt and the Wilking family.
What would not let me go about this case was not the number of allegations. It was the contradictions.
The deeper I delved into the documents, the more often the same question arose: Why do individual statements deviate so significantly from other available records?
The case encompasses allegations of missing property, financial disputes, alleged identity misuse, conflicts with clients, legal proceedings, and personal escalations that have developed over years.
Sven Appelt sees himself as the victim of a system of misrepresentations, turning a blind eye, and institutional failure.
The Wilking family rejects the allegations made against them and describes the events in a fundamentally different way.
As a journalist, I am not interested in who tells the more emotional story.
I am interested in which story is supported by documents.
After evaluating numerous documents, I formed the impression that the statements of the Wilking family, in particular, require especially careful scrutiny. Not because they are necessarily false, but because questions arise in several places that cannot be easily answered by the available documents.
That is exactly where this investigation begins.
Not with judgments.
Not with prejudgments.
But with the simple question:
What actually happened at Uhlandstraße 170 in Berlin – and which of the numerous claims stand up to a fact-check?
___
Personal Statement
My dear friends, my dear companions, my supporters, and my dear customers,
why does this page exist?
Because what began two and a half years ago with my studio at Uhlandstraße 170 long ago ceased to affect only me. It also affects you.
Eight customers had left personal items with us for repair. Another 17 customer orders had already been completed and some were prepared for shipping. In the pictures now available, you can even see the packages that were actually supposed to be sent to you.
What happened to the studio and the property inside, I still consider to this day to be insidious, underhanded, and in its execution, downright mindless.
Property, goods, work materials, and personal items were thrown together indiscriminately in the middle of the room. Subsequently, it was claimed that the room had always looked that way. The recordings now available document a different state.
The value of the customer goods and the items left for repair alone is, in my estimation, at least 7,000 to 8,000 euros.
But the story did not end there.
Afterward, documents and personal data from the premises were used. According to the facts established by the court, fraud was committed via PayPal, Klarna, and other providers. The resulting total damage amounted to around 17,000 euros. The corresponding processes and documents are part of the investigation.
For two and a half years, I have tried to resolve this matter out of the public eye. My demand has always been the same:
Compensate for the damage caused – and the matter is finished.
That has not happened.
And yes: The Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office must also accept criticism. My experiences over the past few years have left me with the impression of a law enforcement agency that is hopelessly overwhelmed, understaffed, and in some areas poorly trained. In my view, essential evidence was not sufficiently taken into account, contradictions remained, and errors were not corrected for a long time.
My personal trust in the handling of this matter by the Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office is therefore not only damaged.
It no longer exists.
Only when a judge made it clear that serious questions had remained unresolved here did things, in my perception, start to move.
And that is exactly why this page exists.
The documents intended for publication will be made accessible chronologically. Personal and private data will be redacted. You will find statements, affidavits, witness testimonies, and other documents there.
Read them. Compare them. Check the timelines.
Form your own opinion.
Because after two and a half years, I no longer want to have to tell you who is telling the truth.
I will let the documents speak.
___
Announcement of the Interview with Sven Appelt-
Publication from 14.08.2026
Following approval by the responsible authorities, a detailed interview with Berlin designer Sven Appelt will be published on August 12, 2026.
The focus is on the allegations made against him as well as his perspective on the events of the past few years. Topics discussed include the conflicts with the Wilking family, the impact on customers and business partners, and numerous documents, affidavits, and other records which, according to Sven Appelt, support his version of the events.
The interview specifically addresses the question of how different statements, allegations, and counter-allegations came about, what contradictions arise from the available documents, and what consequences the conflicts had for third parties according to the accounts of those involved.
It will be a conversation without pre-formulated answers. Direct. Uncut. Documented. And with the willingness to ask the uncomfortable questions as well. Because in the end, it is not the volume of a claim that decides, but its verifiability.
__
THE INTERVIEW
IN CONVERSATION WITH SVEN APPELT
Three years of files. One verdict. And the question of whether the real story has not even been heard yet.
Interview: Emanuel Klimt
Question 1
What do people overlook when they only read the verdict and believe they know the entire story?
There is now a verdict. The public reads a headline and sees a convicted man. However, anyone who examines the files, the backstory, and the years of conflict encounters a story that is far greater than the question of whether someone was insulted. What remains hidden from us if we only read the final pages?
A.
In my view, people overlook one thing above all: They see the end of a chapter and mistake it for the entire book.
Anyone reading a verdict today is not reading the story between Andreas Wilking and me. They are merely reading the result of a single proceeding. What is lost in this are years of conflicts, allegations, counter-allegations, proceedings, reports, and events that preceded this verdict.
I didn't wake up one morning and decide to have a conflict with Andreas Wilking. People are not born looking for trouble. Conflicts arise because something happens. They arise because people react to one another, because allegations are made, because boundaries are crossed, or because one defends oneself against something perceived as an injustice.
If you want to understand why this story exists at all, then you must also be willing to look at the backstory. This includes not only my statements but also the statements of other people who also had or have conflicts with Andreas Wilking. It is not enough to look exclusively at the perspective of the side that ends up looking better in a verdict.
What constantly irritates me is the question of credibility. If someone claims that almost everyone else is lying, deceiving, or wanting to harm them, then at some point one should be allowed to ask the counter-question: Can it really be that everyone else is always the problem? Or is it worth taking a closer look?
That is exactly what I often miss in the public view. There is talk about the verdict, but not about the origin of the conflict. There is talk about individual statements, but not about the backstory. And there is talk about the consequences without seriously questioning the causes.
That is why I believe that people overlook something essential when they only read the verdict: They see a convicted man. But they do not see the years of history behind it that led to this point in the first place. And that is exactly where the questions remain that have still not been sufficiently answered in my view.
Question 2
At what point did a dispute over specific allegations turn into a fight for interpretive sovereignty?
In the beginning, there were individual allegations. Then followed counter-allegations, reports, proceedings, and finally a verdict. It almost seems as if the original question was lost along the way. When did a conflict over facts become a conflict over who gets to tell the story?
A.
For me, a dispute over specific allegations turned into a fight for interpretive sovereignty the moment no one wanted to talk about what actually happened anymore.
Andreas Wilking was an expert witness for decades. He moved in a world where his assessments carried weight, where judges, insurance companies, and institutions trusted his expertise. My impression was that this eventually led to the conviction that his representation of things was automatically the correct one.
That is exactly where the actual conflict began.
Because I was not prepared to simply accept this interpretation.
Suddenly, it was no longer about property, no longer about responsibility, and no longer about the question of who did what. Instead, it was about whose story is believed. Facts became secondary. The narrative became primary.
And at this point, in my view, the state also failed.
My criticism of the public prosecutor's office is not that they make mistakes. Humans make mistakes. My criticism is that in complex proceedings, they often no longer even have the possibility to see the entire story. Overload is treated in Germany now like a force of nature. As if it were an excuse for everything.
But it is not.
When proceedings drag on for years, when files grow, when new incidents arise, and no one has the time to check the connections anymore, a dangerous state is created: Conflicts are managed instead of being resolved.
That is exactly what I experienced.
I increasingly had the feeling that no one was asking: "What actually happened here overall?" Instead, the question was: "What file is on my desk today?"
That is how you lose the big picture.
And when the big picture is lost, it is not the facts that win. Then those who can tell their story most professionally win.
That is why a dispute over facts became a dispute over truths.
And that is exactly why we are sitting here today, not talking about the original events, but about which version of the story the public ultimately believes to be reality.
Today, 2.5 years later, the public prosecutor's office is for the first time talking about the fact that the Wilking family stole, cheated, and lied – that is, in my eyes, a sad state of affairs.
Question 3
Have you ever had the feeling that authorities and courts wanted to see the entire context – or did you have the impression that every incident was viewed in isolation until the big picture was no longer recognizable?
You have been talking about patterns, repetitions, and connections for years. Was it your impression that they wanted to understand these connections – or that everything was broken down into individual file folders?
A.
Yes. And for me, this pattern has a name: Public Prosecutor Akgük and Police Officer Andreas Tschisch.
If I have the impression for two and a half years that voice messages, witness statements, message histories, and other information I consider important play no recognizable role, then I inevitably ask myself a question: Where is the neutrality?
My impression was not a lack of neutrality, but bias.
I do not expect perfection. But I do expect that incriminating and exculpating circumstances be viewed with the same care. I personally missed exactly this balance for a long time.
17 affidavits and the voice messages of Zainab Hassan Wilking were not enough evidence for Prosecutor Akgük. Until the hearing, she accused me of "racist conduct toward migrants."
Therefore, for me, this has long since ceased to be about an individual incident. It is about the still-open question of whether the entire context was ever really considered.
For me, legally weak individuals like Ms. Akgük are a danger to our legal system. It is sad and incomprehensible that I first had to insult two people in such a derogatory and uneducated way to be heard.
Question 4
At what point did you no longer have the feeling of fighting against individual decisions, but against a system that is so busy with itself that it no longer recognizes the actual conflict behind it?
Staff shortages, overload, mountains of files – all that explains delays. But does it also explain why people eventually lose the feeling of being heard?
A.
For me, this point was reached by August 2024 at the latest.
Back then, another person contacted me who, according to their account, had experienced almost the same approach as I had: same patterns, same methods, same conflicts, same allegations. Suddenly, it was no longer just about my story. Suddenly, the question was why certain processes always repeat themselves.
That is exactly where my doubt about the system began.
Because if multiple people report similar experiences independently of one another, and these clues still do not recognizably lead to a comprehensive consideration, then eventually the question arises as to whether the big picture is even being sought at all.
My criticism is directed in particular at the public prosecutor's office and the work of Prosecutor Akgük.
When clues, documents, message histories, witness statements, and connections are presented over years and central questions remain open at the same time, then one is allowed to ask where the necessary neutrality has gone.
What I find particularly hard to understand is that of the numerous charges brought against me (9), the vast majority (7 charges) ultimately played no role. This inevitably raises the question of why so much energy and taxpayer money was spent investigating me, while other matters, in my view, generated significantly less interest.
At some point, you stop asking whether individual decisions were right or wrong. At some point, you ask yourself whether a system is still geared toward uncovering the truth or merely toward administration.
It was precisely at this point that I no longer felt I was fighting against individual decisions. I felt I was fighting a system that is so preoccupied with itself that it has long since lost sight of the actual story behind it, or whether it is really as Zainab Hassan Wilking goes around saying: “Ms. Akgük is my friend, we will never be convicted.” By now, this statement fits the situation.
Question 5
What is overlooked when people perceive the same judge as a defender of freedom of expression in one case and as the judge in a conviction in another?
The public loves simple images. But court cases are rarely simple. What is missing in this comparison?
A.
What is often missing in this comparison is the inconsistency of the system itself.
For me, Judge Wilms is not a simple figure. On one hand, I experienced her as a judge who was certainly willing to critically examine accusations. Numerous points previously raised against me ultimately played no role or were dropped beforehand. This shows that she did not simply accept every claim without scrutiny.
On the other hand, a feeling of disappointment remains with me.
Not because of the verdict alone, but because of a conception of democracy and the rule of law that I partly consider too theoretical. Democracy consists of more than just laws, files, and procedural rules. Democracy also thrives on questioning power, enduring contradictions, and considering conflicts within their entire context.
That is exactly where I see the problem.
I often had the feeling that judges and public prosecutors forget that it is not just case numbers sitting before them, but people. People who think, research, recognize connections, and perceive contradictions.
Therefore, my real criticism is not directed at Judge Wilms personally. My criticism is directed at a system that seems increasingly preoccupied with administering its own decisions rather than questioning its own errors.
If judges repeatedly correct matters, reduce charges, or evaluate proceedings differently than previously requested, the question inevitably arises at some point whether the actual problem might not lie with the courts.
Perhaps the real problem lies beforehand.
Perhaps we must finally ask the uncomfortable question of why public prosecutors' offices repeatedly go to court with cases that cannot be sustained in that form. Perhaps we need to talk about how much tax money, time, and trust is lost when quantity becomes more important than quality.
For a constitutional state does not prove its strength by conducting as many proceedings as possible.
It proves its strength by conducting the right ones.
Question 6
In your view, is the verdict the story – or merely a snippet of the story?
Of the many conflicts and accusations that have arisen over the years, only a small part ends up in a verdict. Is everything told with that – or just the final chapter?
A.
No. In my view, this verdict is not the story. It is a small snippet of the story.
And that is precisely why I find it difficult to view this verdict as a final assessment of the entire conflict.
When I read a verdict and encounter statements that, from my perspective, demonstrably do not correspond with the actual circumstances, I inevitably ask myself questions. These involve points such as locations, depictions of internet presence, or the description of content and forms of communication that I do not recognize as such. For me, these are not trivialities. For me, these are the foundations of a set of facts.
That is exactly why my criticism is directed less at the court than at the preparatory work of the investigative authorities.
For the task of the public prosecutor’s office is not to achieve a conviction. Its task is to objectively clarify the facts – incriminating and exonerating circumstances alike.
And it is precisely at this point that I have significant doubts to this day.
When tips, documents, message histories, and other information are submitted over the years and yet the feeling persists that certain questions were not seriously examined, then trust in the investigative work suffers.
My criticism is therefore not that mistakes happen. Mistakes happen everywhere.
My criticism is that, in my view, it is too rarely questioned why these mistakes could occur and why they sometimes persist for years.
Therefore, I do not see this verdict as the end of the story.
On the contrary.
For me, this verdict raises more questions than it answers. And that is exactly why the real debate does not begin for me before the verdict – but after it.
Question 7
Why does the investigation of certain matters take years, and what does that say about the speed of the rule of law when citizens are dependent on its help?
When ownership issues, evidence, or other points of dispute remain open for years, the question arises as to whether time itself becomes a factor of justice.
A.
I believe the answer is uncomfortably simple.
Germany is one of the most economically powerful countries in the world. At the same time, we have been experiencing a judiciary for years that is reaching its limits in terms of personnel and structure. Proceedings take years, investigations drag on endlessly, and citizens increasingly lose faith that their concerns will be handled in a reasonable time.
That does not surprise me.
We expect public prosecutors to evaluate highly complex facts, decide on existences, and represent the rule of law. At the same time, as a society, we fail to make these positions attractive enough so that the best law graduates of a given year automatically end up there.
The real problem here is not the individual public prosecutor. The problem is a system that has been running on wear and tear for years.
If proceedings last two, three, or four years, then time itself becomes a factor of power. Witnesses remember less well, evidence loses significance, those affected become weary, and eventually, the impression arises that endurance is more important than truth.
I consider that to be dangerous.
For a rule-of-law state does not lose its credibility only when it makes mistakes. It loses it when citizens get the feeling that speed, quality, and thoroughness depend on chance.
My criticism is therefore not a criticism of individual people. My criticism is directed at a system that has been underfunded, overloaded, and thinned out in terms of personnel for years, and then wonders when the results no longer meet the standards of a modern constitutional state.
And if you ask me why some matters take years, my answer is: Because we expect world-class justice, but treat it like a second-class authority in many places.
Question 8
Is your real problem with this verdict not the conviction itself, but the fact that a document has been created that now circulates publicly and is read by many people as the complete truth, even though you are convinced that it paints an incomplete picture of the story in several places?
As a journalist, I read a verdict that raises questions. Questions about locations, technical processes, media concepts, and individual depictions. Is the actual effect of a verdict sometimes greater than its legal significance?
A.
No. My real problem is not the conviction.
I was aware from the beginning that I had resisted a court order several times. One does not need to argue about that. That is the core of the verdict. Not some alleged insults, not hurt feelings, and also not the grand public narrative that was later made out of it.
Therefore, the verdict does not surprise me.
What interests me much more is the effect that such a verdict subsequently unfolds. For many people read a court document and believe that they know the whole story. Yet a verdict always describes only a very limited snippet of a conflict.
Looking back, I sometimes ask myself what would have happened if I had remained silent. I probably would have spared myself many problems. At the same time, I am convinced that I would never have come into contact with the people who later reached out to me and reported their own experiences.
That is exactly why I look at the story differently today.
Whoever wanted to silence me has, in my view, achieved the opposite. For now, other people are speaking. People who previously did not have the courage to express their view publicly. Whether their accusations are justified or not is for the responsible bodies to judge. But they are speaking. And that alone I consider important in a democracy.
Therefore, I do not see the verdict as the end of a debate, but as part of a larger discussion. A discussion about how conflicts arise, how power is perceived, and why some people are not willing to be silent despite personal consequences.
And that is exactly why I can look at this verdict relatively calmly today. Not because it would be meaningless, but because the story behind it is, in my view, significantly larger than the document itself.
Question 9
Have you – consciously or unconsciously – allowed a verdict to emerge that can be discussed today because you assumed that the larger questions would only become visible later anyway?
In other words: Did you bet on a later debate because you believed that certain topics would never be fully addressed within the proceedings?
A.
Yes.
And that is because the points in question were not only noticed after the verdict. They were already known beforehand.
Attention was drawn to what I consider incorrect information. Attention was drawn to questions about the crime scene. Attention was drawn to the naming of internet platforms. Attention was drawn to the depiction of certain publications. These points were on the table and could have been checked or corrected.
That is exactly why I do not view them as mere oversights today.
For me, it is decisive that the warnings were known and the statements remained part of the verdict nonetheless. It also confirms the incompetence of the public prosecutor’s office, because if Prosecutor Akgük provides a wrong address, a wrong website, a newsletter that never existed, then I ask myself today where the neutrality in this proceeding lies?
Why this is so can ultimately only be answered by the court itself.
My impression, however, is that this is precisely where the real significance lies today. For these points raise questions that go far beyond my person. They raise questions about the diligence of investigations, the quality of proceedings, and the handling of tips presented during ongoing proceedings.
That is why I eventually accepted that the real debate might only begin after the verdict.
For if certain statements remain unchanged despite appropriate warnings, they will inevitably become relevant later. Not because of me, but because every verdict must be measured against its own findings.
And that is exactly why I believe that some of the most important questions of these proceedings did not become visible before the verdict, but only through the verdict itself.
Question 10
Is the actual turning point for you not the verdict itself, but the fact that the verdict is now being used as a tool in a public dispute?
From the moment a court document circulates outside the courtroom, the story changes. Was that the real break?
A.
I do not see an actual turning point caused by the verdict itself.
If you look at the verdict soberly, it is not a verdict that changes my life. I knew what it was about. I knew what was being decided. The verdict is therefore neither a shock nor a surprise to me.
The interesting part only begins afterwards.
The real break arises at the moment a court document leaves the courtroom and becomes an instrument of public dispute. That is exactly what I have observed here.
My impression is that the verdict was not just read, but actively used to tell a certain story. And that is exactly where the actual discussion begins for me.
For people react very differently to such a document. Some see a verdict and consider every question answered. Others read more closely. They ask questions. They scrutinize contradictions. They want to understand what is behind it.
These are exactly the people who approached me.
They didn't ask why there is a verdict. They asked why certain statements are in it. They asked why individual depictions do not fit the facts known to them. They asked why some things are talked about and others are not.
And that is exactly why I believe that the verdict today fulfills a different function than originally intended.
It is long since no longer just a judicial decision. It has become part of a public debate.
What interests me most about this is not who believes whom. I am interested in why people feel the need to underpin their own credibility with such a document. For anyone completely convinced of their position often does not need constant confirmation by third parties.
That is why I am not having this conversation in order to argue away a verdict.
I am having it because every story deserves more than one perspective.
And when a document is used publicly to propagate a specific point of view, it must also be permissible in a democracy to question that document, to point out contradictions, and to present a rebuttal.
That, to me, is the core of this debate.
Question 11
Are you actually fighting against a verdict – or against the notion that this verdict tells the entire truth about the conflict?
The longer I deal with this case, the more I get the impression that your opposition is directed less at the decision and more at the interpretation of that decision.
A.
No. I am not fighting against the verdict.
The verdict is the verdict. I defied court orders, I was sentenced for it, and that is the court's decision. There is no need to discuss that.
What I am resisting is the notion that this verdict tells the whole story.
Because then all the questions that led to this conflict in the first place would suddenly disappear. Then there would no longer be any discussion about what happened to property, what decisions were made, and what impact those decisions had on other people. Then only the verdict would remain.
And that is exactly what I consider to be wrong.
It is not about me trying to make Andreas Wilking a symbol. It is about the fact that, in my perception, I am not the only one who has had a conflict with him. Over the years, other people have come forward, reporting their own experiences. Whether their accusations are justified is for others to judge. But they exist. And for that reason alone, the story cannot be reduced to a single verdict.
The actual point of contention for me is different.
In a democracy, no one should have the right to determine the fate of others' property, life's work, or existence as if they were his personal possession. That is exactly where my opposition begins.
And that is precisely why I am not concerned with the legal assessment of my person. I am concerned with the question of why certain processes have still not been adequately addressed, and why some people believe their own version of the truth must automatically be the truth for everyone else.
That is the point at which I object.
Not the verdict.
But the notion that all questions would be answered with this verdict.
Because when a person is repeatedly confronted with contradictions over the years, keeps providing different accounts, and still expects that no one will ask questions, then asking questions is not a disturbance of democracy.
Then asking questions is democracy.
And that is exactly why I am still having this discussion today.
Question 12
Are you comparing historical systems – or are you comparing how states treat people who defy orders and challenge authorities?
You have made statements that provoke and trigger discussions. What exactly were you trying to express with them?
A.
I am not comparing systems one-to-one. Anyone who does that is making it too easy for themselves.
What I am comparing is the way a state treats people who disagree, are inconvenient, or challenge authorities. In this context, I once said that in the Third Reich, I would likely have ended up in a concentration camp; in the GDR, I might have stopped protesting after ending up in Hohenschönhausen; and in today's Federal Republic, I received a suspended sentence.
This is not an equation of these systems. It is a description of their differences.
And exactly these differences also show how far Germany has come. There are worlds between 1933 and today. Germany has made enormous progress. Rule of law, freedom of speech, and democratic oversight are achievements that must not be downplayed.
Nevertheless, progress does not mean that problems no longer exist.
My impression is that our legal system is hitting its limits in many places. The judiciary is overloaded, proceedings take too long, there is a shortage of personnel, and the pay is often not in proportion to the responsibility that prosecutors and judges bear.
That is why my criticism is not directed against democracy. On the contrary. My criticism is directed against the idea that one should no longer be allowed to name existing problems just because the system as a whole has improved.
Germany has taken great steps forward.
But for that very reason, it should also be possible to talk openly about where we are starting to fall back.
And regarding the resources, speed, and efficiency of our judiciary, I see that we have reached a point where reforms are no longer just desirable.
They are necessary.
Question 13
Did your goal eventually cease to be about getting justice? Was your goal to force a reaction?
You once said in effect that sometimes you have to scream until you are heard. Did you ever feel that the real defeat would not be a conviction – but silence?
A.
Yes.
And that is exactly what I addressed in the courtroom.
I find it sad that in Berlin, you sometimes get the feeling that you have to get louder and louder just to be noticed at all. That people eventually believe they have to provoke, dissent, or create constant pressure just so that someone deals with their concerns.
That should not be necessary in a functioning constitutional state.
My goal was never to insult people. My goal was to generate attention for processes that, from my point of view, were ignored for too long.
Because eventually you ask yourself a simple question: What happens if I am silent?
My personal answer to that is: Nothing.
And that was exactly the real danger for me.
Not a conviction. Not a legal proceeding. Not a court date.
But the silence.
Because silence means that questions remain unanswered. Silence means that no one is looking anymore. Silence means that those win who bet on the fact that conflicts will eventually be forgotten.
I believe that money can buy many things. Good lawyers. Advice. Strategies. Influence on public perception.
But what money must never be able to buy is truth.
And that is exactly where the boundary lies for me.
Because democracy must never become the private affair of those who have the greater financial resources. If, at some point, arguments no longer count, but only the resources with which they are put forward, then a constitutional state loses part of its credibility.
That is why I did not stay silent.
And that is why I kept talking, kept writing, and kept asking questions.
Not because I wanted to pick a fight.
But because I was convinced that certain questions had to be asked – even if others would rather not hear them.
Question 14
Did the encounter with a judge, of all people, make you more radical in your determination not to give up?
Over the years, you have encountered many prosecutors, police officers, and judges. But you speak differently about Judge Dr. Ammann. Not as an institution, but as a human being. Was he the first representative of the system who you felt saw not just the file, but also the story behind it? And did that specifically encourage you to continue?
A.
Yes.
And that is exactly why I speak about Judge Dr. Ammann differently than about many others involved in this process.
When I first met him, I had already had years of proceedings, accusations, legal briefs, and disputes behind me. I was used to people reading the file first and then looking at the person. With him, for the first time, I had the opposite impression.
He saw the human being first.
That does not mean he agreed with me. That does not mean he sided with me. It merely means that I had the feeling he wanted to understand why the situation had arisen in the first place.
And that is a difference.
A statement he made back then made me think particularly hard. He described why he had consciously chosen a different area of the judiciary. Not because the work was easier, but because he had experienced an environment there that, from his perspective, worked more calmly, objectively, and in a more solution-oriented manner.
That statement stayed with me.
Because when even judges speak openly about how great the burdens within the system have become, it is no longer an individual problem. Then one is talking about structural problems.
Perhaps that was the exact moment I realized that my conflict is not just a personal one.
Because I have met many judges over the past years. With most of them, one could speak objectively. Most were clearly interested in finding a solution and not in artificially prolonging a dispute.
That is why my fundamental criticism is directed far less often at courts than at the developments leading up to them.
Judge Dr. Ammann was for me one of the first representatives of the system with whom I felt he was not just looking at the individual case, but also at the story behind it.
And perhaps that was the exact reason why I was even more determined not to give up afterward.
Because if even people within the system recognize the problems, then it is worth continuing to talk about these problems.
Not out of defiance.
But because they exist.
Question 15
Are you sure Steven Bauer doesn't just want to be the catalyst for this press release – or is there a possibility that he is simply trying to find out why this story still hasn't come to an end?
You criticize the passing on of documents and the handling of information. At the same time, you have repeatedly sought publicity yourself and contacted journalists. This leads to perhaps the most uncomfortable question of all:
What if the real story for a journalist isn't the verdict at all?
What if the real story is the fact that, after years, the same names, the same conflicts, and the same open questions still exist?
And what if the decisive question is not who is right – but why this story hasn't been concluded to this day?
A.
That is exactly the question I have been asking myself for a long time.
I do not know what intention Steven Bauer pursued by passing on an unredacted document. Whether it was journalistic research, whether he is already working on a story, or whether there is another background is something only he can answer in the end.
For me, however, this question leads directly to another person: Andreas Wilking.
Because if you want to understand why this conflict still exists after almost three years, you have to ask yourself, in my view, what role Andreas Wilking has played in it.
My impression is that many of the contradictions, discussions, and disputes would never have arisen if transparency had been established early on. Instead, for years, I experienced the conflict as a battle for interpretive authority – over which version of events should be believed.
That is exactly why the question of credibility remains at the center for me to this day.
Not my credibility.
But the credibility of a man who, in my view, has long assumed that his account must automatically be the definitive account.
I have gained the impression that Andreas Wilking has for years made decisions or represented positions that have deeply impacted the lives of other people. And that is exactly where the real discussion begins for me.
Because in a democracy, no one should expect that their point of view becomes unassailable due to their age, profession, social reputation, or financial means.
Democracy lives on dissent.
Democracy lives on questioning assertions.
And democracy lives on the fact that even people without special power or special means have the right to say no.
That is why, for me, this has long since ceased to be about a single file or a single verdict.
It is about the question of whether we are prepared to question people with influence just as critically as everyone else.
And that is exactly why I am still talking about it today.
Not because I want to maintain a conflict.
But because I am convinced that conflicts can only be ended if all parties involved are prepared to face the same questions.
The final question
Sven, you have been fighting against Andreas Wilking for almost three years and Andreas Wilking against you. But what did you originally want from him?
One could almost get the impression by now that you are downright obsessively fixated on publicly dismantling this man, punishing him, or destroying his credibility. So, to be specific: Why? What the hell has Andreas Wilking done – apart from the falsehoods you accuse him of – that, after almost three years, you are still not prepared to let this story rest?
A.
What do I want? The answer is terrifyingly simple:
I want my property back.
I want compensation for the damages I have incurred since November 2023, as I have described, due to Andreas Wilking and his wife. I want it clarified what happened to my customers' property – to orders, garments, and goods that, according to my account, were destroyed, disposed of, or not returned in connection with Andreas Wilking and his wife.
And I finally want full clarification of what happened regarding my identity. I am making the accusation that my identity and my data were used, and that financial damages were incurred through this on platforms including PayPal and others. Here, too, it must be clarified what role Andreas Wilking and his wife played in this. This is not a side issue. This must be investigated, reconstructed, and legally clarified.
Likewise, I want to know why, according to my findings, property belonging to gay male customers was conspicuously affected, while women's clothing was left behind. This question, too, is directed immediately at Andreas Wilking and his wife.
And by now, it has long since ceased to be just about me. Other people are raising their own allegations and claiming their own damages against Andreas Wilking and his wife. When we are talking about total damages in a significant, possibly six-figure range, the answer cannot seriously be: Just forget about it, so that there can finally be peace.
I do not want revenge. I want my property, damages, clarification, and accountability – and I want Andreas Wilking and his wife to face the accusations that have been leveled against them.
And do you know, my dear Emanuel, what is actually the saddest thing about this whole story?
It could have ended on November 8, 2023.
Andreas Wilking could have returned my property, settled the damage incurred, and said: We are parting ways here and now, and each of us will go our own way. Perhaps that would have cost a few thousand euros back then. Today, in my view, we are talking about damages and claims in a completely different order of magnitude.
Instead, there followed almost three years of disputes, criminal complaints, proceedings, and ever-new questions. And in the course of this investigation, further facts and allegations against Andreas Wilking and his wife have surfaced that, in my view, could be criminally relevant and must now be clarified by the responsible authorities.
To me, that is the true absurdity: much of this might never have come to light if Andreas Wilking had ended this conflict back then.
All of this could have been prevented.
Not by my silence. Not by me giving in. But by a damn simple decision at the beginning: return the property, take responsibility, settle the damage, and end the matter.
In my view, that possibility still exists. Return my property, provide full economic settlement of the asserted damages, and reach a legally sound comprehensive solution – then this civil conflict can be ended. As for criminal investigations against Andreas Wilking and his wife, neither they nor I decide that anyway, but the responsible authorities.
And my patience with the state has also run out by now. If institutions need almost three years to process proceedings surrounding Andreas Wilking and his wife, they cannot suddenly expect boundless patience and boundless trust from the people who have had to wait for them for so long.
A state under the rule of law cannot simply demand trust. It must earn it through its own work.
Therefore, my final sentence to Andreas Wilking today is almost the same as it was at the beginning:
Give back what belongs to me. Settle the damage. Take responsibility. Then this story can finally end.
Note on the document archive
All documents provided here for download are based on materials that have been made available to us. Personal and private data have been redacted accordingly. The documents are ordered chronologically and include, among other things, personal statements from those involved, statements from family members, as well as affidavits and witness statements from affected parties, witnesses, and associates.
The materials will be available for download starting Monday at 4:00 PM.
The Berlin Public Prosecutor's Office was given until Monday at 12:00 PM inclusive to review the materials intended for publication once more and, if necessary, point out documents that they believe should not be published. For this reason, the document archive will not be activated until 4:00 PM.
See for yourself. Read the materials, compare statements and timelines. Because often, the documented words of the participants themselves say more than what is later told about them or about a situation.
DOWNLOAD:
ABOUT THE PERSON:
Emanuel Klimt
My name is Emanuel Klimt.
I am an investigative journalist. For over twenty years, I have been dealing with conflicts in which the truth is not recognizable at first glance. I investigate where statements clash with statements, where documents reveal contradictions, and where people are convinced that they are in the right.
I believe neither plaintiffs nor defendants. Neither witnesses nor the accused. Neither authorities nor lawyers.
I believe in evidence.
My work is not to name those guilty. My work is to verify claims. Because there is often a significant distance between what people say and what actually happened.
In the past two years, I have read files, evaluated court documents, conducted interviews with those involved, and reconstructed timelines. In doing so, I have learned that the truth is rarely loud. It usually hides in the details.
That is why I ask only one question:
Who knew what, when – and what of that can actually be proven?