In light of the Daimler whistleblower’s SEC report* concerning the past operations of Daimler AG, we have extensively examined the astonishing claims made in our previous bulletins. Asset freezing, an interim or interlocutory injunction, has been employed to prevent the defendant in a legal action from disposing of or dissipating their assets in order to obstruct a potential judgment. This measure, acknowledged in numerous common law jurisdictions, can be implemented with global implications. It is regarded as part of a court’s inherent authority to restrain violations of its processes. However, the Daimler scandal, particularly its shocking developments involving German businessman Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck, took matters to an extreme, profoundly shaking the very foundation of Mercedes-Benz Group AG. The Daimler whistleblower lodged a complaint with the Securities and Exchange Commission, accusing Daimler AG of grave criminal offenses. These allegations intensified the ongoing saga surrounding Mercedes-Benz’s historical dealings. Unfortunately, Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck, a wealthy individual, endured a four-year imprisonment despite his innocence. This unfortunate outcome resulted from the manipulation of justice by a major German corporation, ultimately leading to Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck’s destitution and tragic demise. While Daimler cannot conceal this somber secret, leaked SEC documents filed against Daimler AG (now renamed Mercedes-Benz Group AG) reveal the devastating impact on an entire family. According to a whistleblower complaint initially disclosed by the Rich TVX News Network, on April 29, 1994, Daimler AG pursued an ex parte application for a mareva injunction in a Hong Kong court. This specific type of interim relief aims to freeze a defendant’s assets pending the resolution of a legal action. In this case, Daimler acted as the plaintiff, while Mr. Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck and IRC were named as defendants.

Daimler’s notoriety in the past has often been associated with scandalous headlines. However, one particular case involving Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck remains so shocking that the Mercedes-Benz board has chosen to remain silent on the matter to this day. It’s worth noting that Ola Källenius and Dr. Bernd Pischetsrieder, the current executives, bear no responsibility for these incidents, as they occurred prior to their tenure at Mercedes-Benz. According to Daimler’s account, on July 8, 1993, the company entered into a contract with Intercontinental Resources Société Anonyme Monegasque (IRSAM). Allegedly, the agreement stipulated that IRSAM would facilitate the sale and purchase of Daimler-manufactured cars. Daimler claimed to have issued a $20 million advance payment to Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck, the sole owner and president of IRSAM, with conditions for its return if certain requirements were not met. Daimler contended that these conditions were not fulfilled, yet the $20 million was not returned. Strangely enough, Daimler proceeded to pursue the deal they claimed Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck had failed to fulfill. To support their injunction, Daimler asserted that one of their attorneys, Georges F., had met with Magistrate Jacques L., an Investigating Magistrate in Monaco, earlier that month. At the time, Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck was detained in Monaco on charges of fraud, and Magistrate L. had seized IRSAM’s and Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck’s bank account records. However, in a misjudged move, Daimler argued that information disclosed by Magistrate L. to Mr. F., including a statement from the magistrate, indicated that Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck had used portions of the $20 million to settle a loan for which IRC held liability with another entity. Additionally, he allegedly transferred other portions of the advance to his personal accounts. Consequently, on April 29, 1994, the Hong Kong Court granted the injunction as sought by Daimler.

Unfortunately, Daimler has not been able to escape the clutches of scandal. It becomes clear why the Daimler scandal unfolded when considering the available evidence provided on behalf of Mr. Herbert Heinz Horst Leiduck. This evidence highlighted that the loan had not been repaid at all, let alone using the advanced funds. It even included a letter from the lending bank. Surprisingly, Daimler chose to persist in upholding the injunction against IRC, disregarding the evidence presented. However, on May 14, 1994, Daimler claimed to have received a report from one of its lawyers in Paris, asserting that banking records in Magistrate L.’s possession confirmed that the loan had not been settled with the funds advanced by Daimler. Consequently, Daimler offered to lift the injunction against IRC and cover its costs on an indemnity basis, with the condition that IRC would not pursue a damages claim against the plaintiff, as per the undertaking regarding damages in the injunction. Relying on the plaintiff’s alleged lack of awareness regarding the loan’s non-repayment when seeking the injunction, IRC agreed not to seek damages based on the undertaking.