DThe Berlin prosecutor's office initially does not accept the decision made against the former manager of the rapper Bushido. The agency has filed the appeal “for review purposes,” a spokeswoman for the agency said Monday in response to an inquiry from the German Press Agency. Whether it is actually executed depends on the written reasons of the judgment. It will probably be a few months before it is available. However, appeals must be filed within one week of the judgment.

The Berlin District Court acquitted Arafat Abou-Chaker, who is considered to be the boss of the Berlin clan, on the main counts last Monday after a trial that lasted about three and a half years. It fined the 47-year-old just €81,000 (a 90-day rate of €900 each) for breaching the confidentiality of the word by secretly recording conversations.

Imprisonment compensation for two defendants

Three co-accused brothers aged 42, 46 and 53 were also acquitted in the Bushido cases. One brother was not punished for false testimony. According to the spokesperson of the authority, the prosecutor's office refrained from appealing his case.

According to the court decision, Arafat Abou-Chaker will receive compensation of 75 euros per day for a good two weeks of pre-trial detention, and his 42-year-old brother will receive about eight months. With acquittals in mind, everyone has to pay only a fraction of the huge court costs. The rest goes to the treasury.

Rapper Bushido was a witness and co-plaintiff in the criminal trial – and much of the allegations were based on his testimony. After that, after the breakup of former business partners in 2017, there was talk of violence in order to get a million dollars from the musician. The prosecution charged Abou-Chaker with aggravated extortion, deprivation of liberty, coercion, grievous bodily harm and grave breach of trust, among other charges.

In its decision, however, the district court made it clear: the testimony of Bushido, whose real name is Anis Mohamed Ferchichi, is not convincing. There are contradictions. The judgment stated, among other things, that the predatory extortion attempt was ruled out for legal reasons. Abou-Chaker could have claimed the claims. Negotiations on the separation had lasted for months. It cannot be assumed that the former driver did not have payment claims. According to the court, it was not possible to prove the deprivation of liberty. The panel also allegedly failed to form the conviction necessary for a conviction for grievous bodily harm.