Facts
On April 16, 2008, Attorney [X.] filed a criminal complaint against [A.], [B.], [C.] and [D.] on suspicion of, in particular, forgery of documents, fraud and misappropriation. The complaint was essentially based on the following facts:
[X.] had operated a law firm partnership with [A.], [B.] and [C.] on the basis of a "full partnership" between April 1, 1996 and June 30, 2000. In December 1999/May 2000, [X.] was compelled by [A.], [B.] and [C.] under massive pressure to agree to a retroactive conversion of the "full partnership" into a mere office community as of June 30, 1999. [X.] had come into possession of documents proving that [A.] had at least in 1999 and 2000 diverted fee income amounting to many hundreds of thousands of francs to a private account or "channeled" it past the joint office accounts.
On April 7, 2008, [X.] had filed a civil lawsuit against [A.], [B.] and [C.] in the same matter with the District Court of Meilen.
Considerations
The Federal Supreme Court considers the allegation of a violation of the requirement of expedited proceedings under Art. 29 para. 1 of the Federal Constitution to be justified. The Public Prosecutor's Office is therefore instructed to immediately take the necessary measures to seize the banking and accounting records of the accused for the years 1999 and 2000 - and, if still available,…