HSV player Bakery Jatta has been under investigation for over two years. The accusation: an offense against the Residence Act. The public prosecutor filed charges.
The district court of Hamburg-Altona has rejected the opening of the main proceedings against the HSV professional Bakery Jatta. Jatta’s lawyer Thomas Bliwier confirmed a corresponding report by the “Hamburger Abendblatt” to the German Press Agency on Tuesday. “The rejection was for factual reasons. The public prosecutor’s office could not show that Mr. Jatta deceived,” said Bliwier. The Hanseatic Higher Regional Court initially did not comment on this.
According to the “Abendblatt”, the letter from the district court should say: “In the present case, the investigation result does not support the allegations. The order of follow-up investigations has not been initiated.”
burden of proof too low
In December last year, the public prosecutor’s office brought charges against Jatta. According to the authorities, the Gambian gave a wrong name and a wrong date of birth when he entered Germany. According to the indictment, Jatta is Bakary Daffeh, born on November 6, 1995.
However, the public prosecutor’s office does not provide sufficient evidence for this allegation. The conclusion of the court letter: “There is no further evidence that could enable the accused to be convicted. According to the results of the investigation, it must be assumed with sufficient certainty that the accused’s name is Bakery Jatta and that he was born on June 6th, 1998.”
Jatta lawyer: “That has been determined”
The district court thus ended a year-long odyssey surrounding the striker, who has been playing for Hamburger SV since 2016 and is a crowd favorite with the “Rothosen”. In the course of the investigation, many fans had expressed their solidarity with Jatta. In 134 competitive games he scored 17 goals and prepared another 16.
“There is no suspicion and no reason for further investigations,” said Bliwier: “That has been determined.” The public prosecutor’s office can still appeal against the court’s decision.