- Convicted of bribery in Germany since 2015 – but cleared of corruption charges in Greece due to statute of limitations
- Who are the five defendants on trial Tuesday, April 8, before the three-member Court of Appeals for Criminal Matters.
- The €362,000 bribe and Rüsenbaum’s confession to German justice.
- The controversial contracts and the role of Enercon, the company behind 32,000 wind turbines worldwide.
By Vangelis Triantis
In Germany, an executive of a multinational wind energy giant was already convicted in 2015 for accepting bribes in connection with a project in Greece in 2009. In Greece, however, the same German executive and four Greek co-defendants will finally stand trial 16 years later – but only for breach of trust and complicity in breach of trust. By the time the Greek judiciary seriously pursued the case, bribery and corruption had become statute-barred under Greek law.
The case concerns a 2009 contract for the supply and installation of nine wind farms signed between German energy giant Enercon and PPC Renewables (PPCR), a subsidiary of the Greek Public Power Corporation, with Greek company Prenecon acting as a subcontractor for the civil engineering works under the main contract. However, according to the findings of the Greek judicial investigation, the contract was allegedly overpriced by €6.115 million.
On Tuesday, April 8, 2025, five individuals will stand trial before the Three-Member Court of Appeal for Felonies in connection with this high-profile corruption case involving both Greek and German companies operating in the renewable energy sector.
The defendants include Peter Rüsenbaum, the former head of project management at Enercon’s parent company in Germany; a former manager of Enercon’s Greek subsidiary; the former director of wind energy at PPC Renewables (PPCR); the former CEO and shareholder of the Greek company Prenecon; and the former legal representative of Enercon in Greece.
The charges they face are all felonies, specifically breach of trust, incitement to breach of trust, and complicity in breach of trust. Data Journalists are unraveling the complex story of this remarkable case, which has attracted the attention of both Greek and German prosecutors since 2011.
The controversial 2009 contract
In February 2009, executives at Germany’s Enercon and Greece’s PPC Renewables (PPCR) had every reason to smile. The two companies had just signed a contract to supply and install nine wind farms with a total capacity of 35.10 MW. Enercon is one of the largest wind turbine manufacturers in Germany. Founded in 1984, the company has developed, produced and operated more than 32,000 wind turbines in 50 countries around the world.
The wind farms were to be built at various locations in Greece – including Kattavia in Rhodes, Skalochori in Lesvos, two areas in Rethymno (Crete), Agios Sozonas in Limnos, Pythagoreio in Samos, and others. However, according to the indictment, this particular contract was signed “in violation of the principles of sound management”. Specifically, Enercon’s bid included that of its subcontractor, the Greek company Prenecon, which was responsible for carrying out the civil engineering work – that is, the construction of “foundations, roads and areas for the installation of equipment” around the nine wind farms.
According to the charges, Prenecon’s bid was “overpriced.” In fact, while the total cost of the civil works was set at €15,530,000 (net), “the fair and reasonable price for the nine wind farms should have been €5,788,000”. Even including a reasonable profit margin, the total cost should not have exceeded €7.055 million.
Most strikingly, Prenecon was selected as a subcontractor by direct award – without any competitive bidding – a procedure that, according to the indictment, “constitutes a violation of the principles of sound management”.
In other words, Enercon was required to obtain bids from at least three competing contractors and select the most competitive bidder as its subcontractor.
In November 2009, the relevant subcontracting agreements for the construction of the wind farms were signed. Despite the fact that “Prenecon did not have the necessary experience to carry out such projects”, it was awarded the contract and carried out the work.
According to the referral order, the contract signed with PPC Renewables (ΔΕΗΑΝ) caused financial damage to Enercon, as the company ended up paying Prenecon approximately €16.47 million for the construction of the nine wind farms.
The total amount that should have been paid – without the overpricing – was €6.615 million. Therefore, the financial loss amounted to €9.66 million, resulting from the overpricing of the construction works for the seven wind farms, plus an additional €194,863 paid in advance for two other wind farms in Sifnos and Pythagorio (Samos) that were never built.
Enercon’s Lawsuit to the Public Prosecutor of Oldenburg
In 2011, Enercon’s parent company became aware of the “tainted” contract that had been signed. An internal investigation was immediately launched. Once completed, its findings left no room for doubt. Resorting to the German legal system was the only possible course of action. On May 3, 2011, Enercon filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor’s office in Oldenburg against its head of project management, Peter Rüsenbaum. The complaint alleges that the German manager “approved wind energy project contracts with Prenecon without a prior tendering procedure, in violation of German law. The Oldenburg Public Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation against the German national, and formal charges were subsequently filed against him. At the same time, in August 2011, a senior executive of Enercon arrived in Greece and informed the Greek authorities about the case. This was only two years after the signing of the “tainted” contract.
Bribery conviction in Germany
In July 2015 In July 2015, the German judiciary sentenced Rüsenbaum to a two-year suspended prison sentence and a fine of €135,000 for bribery and causing financial damage to Enercon. The verdict detailed incidents, meetings and bribes involving the accused Greeks, both before and after the controversial contract was signed. Rüsenbaum himself confirmed all the events mentioned in the German verdict. “The defendant has fully confirmed all the facts attributed to him as part of his defense. There is no doubt about the truthfulness of his confession,” the case stresses.
Specifically, the German verdict named three individuals allegedly involved in the case: the person in charge of Enercon in Greece at the time, the CEO of Prenecon, and the project manager and advisor to the management of DEIAN. These three individuals were among the five defendants who appeared before the Court of Criminal Appeals on April 7 to face charges of breach of trust.
The three Greeks allegedly held a meeting in 2008. According to the verdict, these individuals tried to “take advantage” of the situation since DEIAN had already issued a tender that had been declared invalid. In addition, one of the three Greeks allegedly offered to ensure that Enercon would participate in the new tender, even though Enercon had not participated in the first tender that had been declared invalid.
As it turned out, Enercon was the only company to participate, and reference was made to the role and contribution of one of the Greek nationals in the controversial contract, suggesting that “DEI should accept an excessively high price within market conditions”.
The three Greeks allegedly agreed that the additional amount resulting from the deal would not go to Enercon, but would be used for their own benefit. This was to be achieved through subcontracts that Enercon would award to Prenecon, where all prices would be “extremely inflated,” according to the German court’s ruling.
The Bribery of the German and the Meetings
On May 21, 2008, the bid for the civil engineering works was submitted. The bid amounted to €15.524 million (excluding VAT) and would serve as the basis for awarding the civil engineering contract to Prenecon.
According to the German court decision, this person feared that both the procurement department and the project managers of Enercon would raise obstacles to the contract, in particular regarding the subcontracting agreement with Prenecon at these prices. For this reason, the three Greeks agreed and decided to “approach and bribe the accused Peter Rüsenbaum, who was the head of the project management and a senior executive in the corporate hierarchy of Enercon”.
The German court decision also mentions a communication in late 2008 between one of the three Greeks and Rüsenbaum. The two men even had lunch together, during which Rüsenbaum allegedly received a sum of €20,000. The German then allegedly met with two of the three Greeks at a DEIAN building. The three allegedly discussed the problems that had arisen at the construction sites. During the conversation, Rüsenbaum is said to have realized that his interlocutors knew that he had received money from Prenecon and that they were therefore putting pressure on him.
The offshore company and the money trail
The same decision of the German justice gives a detailed description of the money flows that were given as bribes, and it also names the offshore company that was created for this purpose. Specifically, in 2010, there was a communication between one of the three Greeks and Rüsenbaum in which the issue of traveling with large sums of cash was raised. Subsequently, Rüsenbaum proceeded to establish the company Jabwind Ltd. In order to facilitate the bribes, on October 26, 2010, Rüsenbaum opened a bank account at Hellenic Bank in the name of Jabwind Ltd.
On October 21, 2010 and October 26, 2010, Rüsenbaum issued two invoices on behalf of Jabwind Ltd. to Pre Renewable Energy Constructions Limited for purported architectural design consulting services in the amount of €230,000 each. On November 4, 2010, Pre Renewable Energy Constructions Limited transferred this amount to the aforementioned Cypriot bank account of Jabwind Ltd. The company was incorporated in Cyprus on August 28, 2009, and two of the three Greeks are listed as directors. Rüsenbaum is alleged to have received approximately €362,015 for his services to Prenecon.
They got off because of the statute of limitations in Greece
Let’s go back to Greece. In 2011, an executive of the German company Enercon arrived in Greece and informed the prosecutorial authorities about this specific corruption case. Meanwhile, on December 20, 2011, the German prosecutorial authorities sent a document to their Greek counterparts requesting the provision of documents as part of a preliminary investigation they were conducting against Rüsenbaum. In these documents, the German authorities provided the Greek authorities with detailed information about the persons involved and the “suspicions” they had regarding the controversial contract.
Three years later, the German authorities came back. In 2014, the Ministry of Justice of the German state of Lower Saxony sent a document to the Greek Ministry of Justice within the framework of mutual legal assistance. The document referred to the results of the investigation against the four Greek individuals involved in the corruption scandal. In fact, the German Ministry of Justice requested that “criminal charges be considered” against the four Greeks for active bribery, passive bribery and aiding and abetting active bribery. The Athens Court of Appeals sent all relevant documents to the Athens First Instance Prosecutor’s Office for a preliminary investigation and the preparation of a case file.
Finally, in May 2013, according to the referral decision, Rüsenbaum confessed to the German prosecution.
Despite all the information and evidence provided to the Greek authorities since 2011, nothing progressed. In fact, it wasn’t until 2017 that the Economic Crimes Prosecutor’s Office opened a file to investigate the crime of breach of trust against DEIAN, following a report by the AXIA newspaper. While the German justice system moved at a fast pace, Rüsenbaum had already confessed in 2013 and was finally sentenced in Germany in 2015. In Greece, however, the case seemed to have been forgotten, buried in some drawer.
In 2021, the file of the Economic Crimes Prosecutor’s Office was archived, as Enercon and DEIAN reached a settlement and the prosecutor’s investigation revealed that there had been no financial damage to DEIAN. In addition, the private sector bribery case was not investigated. The reason for this was that the offense was considered a misdemeanor and, as such, was barred by the statute of limitations since it occurred between 2008 and November 2010. The attitude of the judicial system, as described in the referral decision, is truly remarkable, resulting in the individuals involved escaping liability for the bribery offense due to the statute of limitations.
