Reederei Joachim Drescher and associated Companies i.L.
The Shipbroker Erich Drescher, borne 3.6.1908, founded Reederei Erich Drescher 1955, office Alter Fischmarkt 11, 2000 Hamburg 11. After his deadt 7.3.1971, his son, Joachim Drescher took it over and changed the name to Reederei Joachim Drescher. The domicile was moved to Hamburg-Altona, Palmaille 33.
The Reederei and a number of associated and newly founded companies in Hamburg, London, New York, San Francisco, Tokyo and Caracas had to be closed, after its successful establishments with new partners in the 70#s, as from May, 1983, after a number of unforeseen circumstances.
With the building and delivery of the Newbuilding 2273 on 29.12.1978 (with the name MV CORINNA DRESCHER, changed to MV Lloyd Baltimore and then Elma Tres) the Deutsche Bank AG took illegally the Governmental Subsidy for the vessel i.e. Abt. DM 5.0 Mill and transferred the money, upon instruction of the Bremen Finance Senator to the shipyard Schichau-Unterweser AG, Bremerhaven, whose shareholders were the Family of H. & W.Noe, Bremerhaven at that time. Also, a further DM 2.0 Mill so called Komplementärdarlehen (loan to the personal liable partner of the limited partnership) were taken likewise. The prtice of the vessel was suddently to be considered as DM 33.987.000 instead of DM 28.987.000 as ordered.
The ship was ordered 29.3.1978 with subjects and conditions (§ 22 of shipyard contract), which were obviosly in breach.
According to German rules & regulations Government Subsidies are always granted to the Owners, but not to the shipyards and assignements were and are prohibited.
After delivery and payment of MV CORINNA DRESCHER with charter name Lloyd Baltimore Deutsche Bank AG presented a false bank account of owners to the Ministry of Transport (BVM) and an unvalid assignment document, and obtained with them the due Subsidy for the vessel on 14.9.1979.
The Minister of Transport, contrary to the German Regulation, agreed to such unvalid document after delivery of the vessel, contray to German Regulations, and performed the remittance to unauthorized third party, presumably the shipyard. Supporting bank vouchers are missing.
The Trustee account of the shareholders with Deutsche Bank AG, was taken by the Bremen Finance Senator. The Bank refused release to the owners. There were the payments of the shareholders to be made.
The Senatior of Finance agreed directly with Deutsche Schiffsbeleihungsbank AG Hamburg to increase the loans, without knowledge and support of owners-KG and KR-Owners.
MV CORINNA DRESCHER, delivered on 29.12.1978, started trading as MV LLOYD BALTIMORE, proved to be a „flop“. There were 10/12 heavy engine repairs in the trading area East Coast South America and –North America and had proved the vessel as too narrow for more than 3 deck container layers on deck. The charterers of the vessel, ELMA, Buenos Aires (after Lloyd Brasileiro) carried an unallowed 4th layer with heavy Motorblocks. The vessel sunk in the Bermuda-triangle on 26.11.1981.
Harald Marienfeld was sole survival. 23 Seamen died. My sympathy is with their families.
The H & M Insurers Global/Allianz via the brokers Leonhardt & Blumberg, Hamburg, paid the Kasko Insurance money to the involved mortgagees, including the mortgage of the stolen subsidy (initially DM 5,0 Mill), to the banks and another subsidy compensation of DM 3.55 Mill to the Ministry of Trade. Therefore, there was no money available for a substitute vessel. So owners loss for subsidy money was DM 8,55 Mill (3,55 Mill paid + DM 5,0 Mill taken away)
The money thieves have not returned the illegally taken away money. For the unreduced loans for the vesserl cost DM 1,5 Mill additional interests in 3 years.
Only, the DM 2.0 Mill taken Complementary loan was repaid to Deutsche Bank by the Bremen Finance Senator in May, 1983 and was not made available for any substitute vessel, contrary to what was initially agreed.
Initially, the vessel was ordered according to § 22 of the shipyard contract 29.3.1978 under subjects and conditions, that the yard respectively State of Bremen to supoply guarantees for 5,0Mill Government subsidy, a complementery unsecured load DM 2,0 Mill and KG-Kapital (Limited partnership capital) DM 10,5 Mill. Shipowner Joachim Drescher was supposed to bring MV CATHRIN at a price odf DM 11,2 Mill and two loans of ship supply companies of each DM 1,0 Mill into the new limited partnership company Schiffahrt Joachim Drescher KG., on 2nd May, 1978.
The shipyard and State of Bremen/Finance Senator did not comply with their obligations.
The P & I insurance Oceanus (brokers Leonhardt & Blukberg, Hamburg) went into bankruptcy in May1983 and was therefore no protection available by P & I insured Lawyers. It followed many default judgements with the courts in New York, London, Rotterdam, Hamburg etc, and there occured debts amounting to more than DM 100 Mill. The Deutsche Schiffsbeleihungsbank AG filed bankruptcy request 17th May 1983 at court of Hamburg.
The Deutsche Bank AG as money thieves refuse, upto date, to return the illegally stolen subsidy of abt. DM 5.0 Mill. The bank pretends that they granted a loan of DM 5,0 Mill, just before delivery of the vessel, with credit valuta paid out to the shipyard and having obtained an assignmemnt of the subsidy as security of that loan. For sub load and assignment, Owners-KG and KR-Owners finally did not agree and rejected the loan, as then the total ship's price was settled by the loan-consortium headed by Deutsche Schiffsbeleihungsbank AG, Hamburg, as planned. The pre-finance of the subsidy was therefore not required any more. The price of the vessel was DM 28.987.000 and was paid in one rate.
Deutsche Bank, Bremen refused upto date, to release the trustee account of the Shareholders (acc No. 2333961 Deutsche Bank, Bremen). They say it had been given to the Finance Senator Bremen.
An initially agreed complementary loan of DM 2.0 Mill was discharged in May, 1983, but not renewed. It was requested as sub-condition loan in § 22 of shipyard contract to be available as unsecured personal loan, for liquid money purpose of the complementary of the partnership, Mr. Joachim Drescher. But then it had to be used on delivery of the vessel, to match the ship's price. So when it was discharged by State of Bremen/Finance Senator, it was no longer available.
All banks, mainly mortgage banks, exploited all other vessels, lands and houses.
Orders of ships with Thyssen Nordseewerke GmbH, Emden, Rickmers-Werft GmbH, Bremerhaven and a 2nd vessel with IHI, Aioi, Japan could not be materiallized. The Minister of Trade had not given his final approval, without disclosing his participation in the taken way subsidy for MV CORINNA DRESCHER..
The taken away subsidy for MV CORINNA DRESCHER was not returned by the responsible Bremen Finance Senator, to the damaged shipowners, but instead, was made a payment by him 16.7.1982 to the affiliated company of the shipyard, Messrs. Schichau-Unterweser AG Beteiligungs-GmbH DM 6.225.000 respectively their Bank, Deutsche Bank AG, supposed for a comparative Process in Bremerhaven.
It maybe supposed that the limited shareholders, Schichau-Unterweser AG Beteiligungs.-GmbH and Mr. Winfried Noe, successor of NORDSEE Frachtschiffahrts-GmbH & Co.KG Bremerhaven were the receivers of the loan and subsidy, which enabled their partnership in Schiffahrt Joachim Drescjher KG (the owners-KG). It is asdsumed that there was a purpose by them to let Joacjhim Drescher to taske over the Activa and Passiva of the owners-KG.
The German Courts look to credit terms of the Banks and give unlimited Rights to them. Still, it remains a fact of unjustified and illegal
taking away money according § 812-822 BGB., especially the credit/loan money of the account no. 8263113 Deutsche Bank and the vouchersd of such account, which are documentated as owned by Schiffahrt Joachim Drescher KG.
Upto today there is no understandable statement of money receivers, why the taken away money is not returned. A claim 15.11.2015 was awarded by the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg. (Akt.Z. 7K6300/15) and as the claim was rejected, a vocation & complaint was filed at Hamburgisches Oberverwaltungsgericht, Hamburg (file no. 5 So32/18). However, on 23rd October, 2018 the court also rejected owners claim and referred to court in charge to be Verwaltunsgericht Bremen. So, on 10.11.2018 we sent a claim to that court in Bremen (see copy under Balance sheets 1979).
Also, a petition was requested at the Deutscher Bundestag, Berlin (File Pet 4-19-07-99999-010062, changed to Pet 2-19-50-7601-010062)
As a consequence of the taken away money and supply of an unsuitable vessel for container trade, which prior to sinking suffered 10/12 engine damages and -repairs, Owners claim the loss of total 6 ships and 6 orders of new ships, loss of assets, money, land, houses etc. Only one Newbuilding vessel (MV RUTH DRESCHER) could be finallized and delivered 26.6.1983, but had to be released to the Japanese partners, because of the bankrupcy request of the Deutsche Schiffs-beleihungsbank AG, Hamburg in May, 1983 and the credit redundancies of the Japanese Banks.
The Deutsche Bank AG refers to limitation of time. Owners insist on return of the money according to §§ 812/822BGB and think that limitaton of time for taken away money should still be discussed. There are various reasons for delayed time limits.
The Minister of Trade had requested the wife of the owner, to join signing a subsidy contract 14.2.1979 with changed Terms and conditions (loans to be increased, shareholders and share capital changed etc), and had assisted the thefts of the subsidy and to ignore the prohibited assignments.
Upto now, the BVM has not proven, with usual bank vouchers, how the subsidy was paid. from where to where, with usual bank vouchers as evidence. Looking at the balance sheets, given by the chartered accountants, one can see that the managing owners Joachim Drescher KG show DM 8.074.141,15 in 1978 and DM 5.074.141,15 in 1979, accounts receivable from the owning company Schiffahrt Joachim Drescher KG, pretended appeared because of assignments, while in the balance sheet of the owning company such accounts payable are not shown. but figures of an unknown third party, who are supposed to be owed DM 5.012.569,44 to a bank account at Deutsche Bank AG with the number 8263113.
If said unknown party would be the shipyard, many balance sheets and accounts would have to be changed and explained by the chartered accountants. There was and is no reason for such overpayment. The Deutsche Bank AG had pretended at the BVM, that there was a pre-finance of the subsidy, combined with an assignment of the subsidy - a fake pretention - and therefore the subsidy was taken away.
The BAFIN, Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, Bonn, had responded thereto 20.6.2016 (GZ VBS 3QB 4301-2016/1255 (2016/1071036 Deutsche Bank).... "civil right nature"... and "should there be any sign of cheating or unfaithful actions, I will pick up the matter again".
But, it was not the only matter to complain at. The price of the newbuilding 2275 on 29.12.1978 was agreed to be DM 28,987,000 as fixed price, payable upon ship's delivery. It included a building inspection fee for Reederei Joachim Drescher (TDM 300) and a brokerage fee of the shipbroking company of the complementary, Messrs. Wilhelm A.N.Hansen (TDM 700). Such fees were registered with the BVM (see files)
The fee for Wilhelm A.N.Hansen (TDM 700) was used for payment of the price of vessel , however there failed to be a booking at the ship- owning company as liability against Wilhelm A.N.Hansen. It is clerarly viewable at the balance sheet of Wilhelm A.N.Hansen in 1979. Also in 1980 there is missing such demand, based on the outsourced billing.
Also the Capital acquisition fee of Messrs. Drescher Verwaltungs- & Beteiligungs-GmbH of DM 1,865,000 leading to the acquisition value of the vessel of DM 31,962,000 was left away by the BVM Bundesminister für Verkehr, in his contract 14.2.1979.
The total accounts receivable of the corresponding owners (Managers) , Reederei Joachim Drescher, Hamburg, was left outside and had not been integrated in the balance sheet of the owning compasny Schiffahrt Joachim Drescher KG. See balance sheets,
Both vessels should have been paid at DM 40,187,000, MV CATHRIN (DM 11,200,000) and MV CORINNA DRESCHER (DM 28,987,000) and side costs for Drescher Verwaltungs- & Beteiligungs- GmbH (DM 2.450,000) had to be added. In the price was included the brokerage commission (TDM 700) and the building inspection fee (TDM 300), payable by the shipyard.
To comply with the subjects in § 22 of the shipyardcontract 29.3.1978, there were proofs to be supplied.
The state of Bremen issued insufficient guarantees 92-74-100/52 L 29.12.78 TDM 6,000 instead of DM 10,500, 92-74-100/55 L 29.12.78 TDM 2,000, 92-74-100/53 L 29.12.78 TDM 5,000, 92-74-100/10014 L TDM 2,000, 92-74-100/20 L TDM 1,000, total = 5 x, to comply with § 22 of the contract with the shipyard.
These, and the corresponding loans were obviously partly misused.
The demand for regulating was timely announced.
The HANSA International Maritime Journal published wrong pretentions in earlier reports, stating that the sunken MV ELMA TRES ex New- building 2273 was underinsured. So it was slender, obviously spreaded by the money-thiefs. True fact is that vessel had too high loans, not reduced by the receipt of the subsidy and non-receipt of the complementary loan, in total DM 7,0 Mill for both, for which interest had to be paid, and even increase of loans.
Also, further money was grabed away, like the fees brokerage Wilhelm A.N.Hansen, as stated.
Money for a substitute vessel was not available, as the money thiefs refused to return the stolen money. In Contrary, the Minister of Traffic collected, from our insurance broker Leonhard & Blumberg another DM 3,350,000 from vessels H & M insurance, as compensation for the sunken vessel.
Schichau-Unterweser, changed to Schichau-Seebeckwerft AG disclosed on 27.11.1991 to Deutsche Bank AG (see PDF-File with resp. letter), that the yard received the missing monies of TDM 2.000 and TDM 5.000 on 29.12.1978, nam,ely on their account no. 8215402. The pretention, that the yard received a pre-finance of the subsidy by Deutsche Bank AG, which was DM 4,980,000, was supported by the attorneys of Deutsche Bank in a letigation in Frankfurt a.M, advising it was performed.
Also a missing interest statement of account until payout date 14.9.1979, proven by bank statememnts of the pretended credit account no. 8263113, on which the BVM pretended having paid to, remained unvouchered and also, do not fit to the price of vessel and pretended credit amount.
If the owning company received such money via their usual business bank account with Vereins- & Westbank AG, Hamburg, or even on a new business bank account with Deutsche Bank AG, there should be a money receipt voucher and such would be booked. But such voucher was not received and upto date the BVM has not come up with evidence of clearing payment been made.
Some information was received by Deutsche Bank, saying that the collected overpayment by the yard was used as limited partnership shares by Schichau-Unterweser AG Beteiligungs-GmbH, Bremerhaven, who joined the ownership Co with a total of DM 8.250.000. So, presumably the subsidy was paid to the yard and they forwarded it to their Shareholding subsidy.
The settlement agreement dated 13.7.1982 (see in balance sheet 1981 as attached) between the Complementary Joachim Drescher and the limited shareholders of Schiffahrt Joachim Drescher KG, was submitted by SCHACKOW & PARTNER, Bremen, attorneys, and was checked by the attorney of the complementaryx in Hamburg, and was declared as being correct. However, the receipt of final accounts received by Deutsche Bank AG and the letter of Schichau-Seebeckwerft had proven, that the subsidy with paid, incorrectly, to the shipyard instead of
to owners and that also the complementary loan was grabbed by the shipyard, and also that the KG-Kapital, guaranteed by the State of Bremen, was not transferred from the trustee account at Deutsche Bank to the shipowning company, but that a transfer was made 16.7.1982 of DM 6.225,000 to the yard in Bremerhaven.
Thesettlement agreement was therefore incorrent and did not show the incorrent money transfers. in 1978/79. Neither the BVM nor the state of Bremen were partners of the settlement agreement.
Until there will be clearification, following applies:
Joachim Drescher as Owner of the liquidating ownership company has confined his activities to the international active shipbroking company WILHELM A.N.HANSEN & CO LTD with international registry. In Wedel, he is advisory representative.
sgd. Joachim Drescher