Every villain has an origin story.

While we might not ever know how deep the rabbit hole goes, we now know, for a few years at least, Josip Heit and an associated gang of criminals pickpocketed train commuters in Luxembourg.

Following a previous report on Heit’s criminal activity in Luxembourg, today BehindMLM is publishing full details of the case and sentencing.

Our source material for this article is a December 21st, 2011 judgment from the the Court of Appeal of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (Court of Appeal). The original document is in French and the number assigned to the judgment is 614/11.

The Court of Appeal’s judgment was provided by a BehindMLM reader who wishes to be cited as the “Anonymous of the Metaverse”.

As per the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Josip Heit and six co-conspirators were convicted on theft, theft with violence and money laundering charges in the Luxembourg City District Court on January 27th, 2011. The assigned case number was 322/2011.

Several previous proceedings are noted in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, specific details of which are unclear;

In view of the summons of 8 November 2010 duly notified to the defendants.

In view of referral order number 1785/10 of the Council Chamber of the District Court of and in Luxembourg of 26 August 2010.

Having regard to judgment number 765/10 issued by the Council Chamber of the Court of Appeal dated 22 October 2010 confirming the aforementioned referral order.

I could be wrong but it sounds like criminal proceedings in 2010 were appealed. Those appeals failed leading to the January 2011 judgment.

Said judgment and corresponding convictions were appealed in February and March 2011.

The Court of Appeals held two hearings, on November 14th and 16th, 2011. Josip Heit was represented by attorney Roland Michel at these hearings.

Following the hearings, the Court of Appeal issued judgment on December 21st, 2011. This is the final judgment we are citing from in this article.

Of note is the Court of Appeal’s judgment noting Josip Heit’s surname change from Josip Ćurčić (“P2′.)”) during earlier proceedings.

At the hearing on 7 December 2010, P2.) stated that, following his marriage, he had changed his name to P2′.).

It is clear from the passport issued in Zagreb on 11 August 2009 that the defendant, born on (…) in (…) (Croatia), is currently called P2′.).

This is consistent with a publicly suppressed report from Dusan Miljus of Jutarnji.

Josip Heit was born in Split and married Kristina Heit, a German citizen born in Russia and residing in Germany, in 2009, and then took her last name.

Miljus’ Jutarnji report, published in September 2024, was the first report on Heit’s Luxembourg criminal case.

In response to the report, Heit filed a lawsuit against Jutarnji’s parent company Hanza Media in Croatia.

An October 6th report from Imperijal states Heit’s case was withdrawn on March 12th, 2025.

On March 12, 2025, Judge Klarić determined that the lawsuit in that case had been withdrawn.

The Explanation shows that the lawsuit was withdrawn outside the hearing, in a written submission submitted on March 11, 2025.

Miljus’ Jutarnji article was pulled around the time Heit’s lawsuit was filed. The article remains inaccessible at time of publication.

Getting back to Luxembourg, as previously stated, Heit is designated P2. Heit’s coconspirator defendants are designated P1 and P3 to P7 (seven criminal defendants in total).

P1 is from Serbia and Montenegro. P3, P5 to P7 are from Bosnia and Herzegovina. P4 is also from Croatia.

The identities of coconspirators P1 and P3 to P7 are unknown.

The Criminal Offenses

As per a Statement of Facts in the Court of Appeal’s judgment, Heit and the gang of criminals he worked with were fleecing elderly clients of a bank near Luxembourg Station.

It emerges from the evidence in the case file and from the testimony of the witness heard at the hearing that from August 2007, investigators were informed by CFL employees of an increase in pickpocketing at Luxembourg Station and on trains.

An investigation into these thefts began in June 2009. The victims were mainly elderly foreign bank customers in the Luxembourg financial centre, who travelled to and from the train.

The observations and telephone tapping carried out made it possible to identify several thieves and to uncover their methods of operation.

Investigators were able to observe the almost daily presence of thieves operating together, as demonstrated in particular by telephone tapping.

The people whose phones had been tapped were in almost constant telephone contact.

Once a victim was identified, a telephone consultation followed between the various parties concerned regarding how to proceed. Investigators were able to observe that the parties did not hesitate to board a train in groups to steal a victim’s funds.

Several strategies to divert the victim’s attention were implemented, such as dropping glasses, throwing coins or asking for information.

The theft is usually committed only a few moments before the train’s departure, making it impossible for the victim, provided they have noticed the theft, to leave the train and alert the police.

Most of the time, one of the participants is responsible for monitoring the train as it departs, in order to warn others of a possible incident, such as the victim realizing the theft, managing to get off the train and going to the police to file a complaint.

In addition, the perpetrators of the thefts used accessories to make themselves unrecognizable, such as hats and glasses.

Several of the perpetrators were also equipped with orange signal vests, allowing them to quickly cross the tracks instead of having to use the underground passages to get from one platform to another.

In handing down its judgment, the Court of Appeals examined no less than thirty-two criminal offenses Heit and his conspirators had been charged with. Below we will go through each of them and the Court of Appeal’s ruling on the charges.

Criminal Offense #1, Report 31334 on September 21st, 2007 from the Grand Ducal Police

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit] and P6.), on 21 September 2007, at around 4.45 p.m., in Luxembourg, at the Glacis car park, of having fraudulently removed from D.) two handbags containing FORTIS bank papers, keys, security cards and a sum of 20 euros.

Note the Court of Appeals denotes victims of Heit’s and his coconspirator’s crimes as “D.)”. Victims in subsequent reports are assigned different letters using the same format.

On September 21, 2007, D.) filed a complaint with the police after having two handbags stolen from him.

He explained that he had parked his vehicle in the Glacis car park in Luxembourg and then gone with his wife at FORTIS Bank.

When he returned to his vehicle, he realized that the front license plate of his vehicle was only held in place by a screw.

His wife put the bags on the back seat of the car while D.) tried to secure the plate.

At one point, two men approached him and gave him the screw to secure the plate. These two men then left, taking the two handbags from D.)’s vehicle.

The telephone tracing carried out made it possible to establish that at the time of the events, P6.) was at the scene of this theft.

He was in contact at the time of the events with at least two other people, who were using prepaid cards with consecutive telephone numbers.

Heit and his coconspirators deny the reported criminal acts took place.

The Court of Appeals ruled the police’s investigation failed to meet a “sufficient legal standard” and acquitted Heit and coconspirator P6 of charges related to the reported incident.

Criminal Offense #2, Report 22130 on October 10, 2007 from the Grand Ducal Police

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit] and P6.), on 10 October 2007, at around 11:15 a.m., (…), at the Hotel-Studio (…), of having fraudulently removed from A.), an envelope containing the amount of 140,950 US dollars.

It appears from the investigation conducted in question that an envelope containing USD 140,950 was taken from A.).

The latter had withdrawn the aforementioned sum from ING BANK and had joined his wife in the lobby of the hotel (…) in Luxembourg.

At one point a man approached A.) and dropped some coins. A.) helped this person to pick up the coins. During this time another person took the envelope containing the dollars.

When A. ‘s wife , who was in the toilet during the incident, returned, the envelope had disappeared.

[Redacted], a hotel employee, recognized P2′.) [Heit] as one of the people who sat in the hotel lobby on October 10, 2007, without being a guest.

The hotel receptionist, [redacted], recognized P2′.) [Heit] and P6.) as being present in the hotel lobby at the time of the incident. The waitress [redacted] also recognized P2′.) [Heit] and P6.).

P2′.) [Heit] and P6.) confessed to the facts. They stated that P2’.) [Heit] distracted the victim by dropping coins while P6.) removed the envelope. A third person, namely a man named BOZO, was to ensure the return of A. ‘s wife.

The proceeds of the theft were shared among the three participants.

The Court of Appeals upheld convictions related to this incident against Heit and coconspirator P6.

Criminal Offense #3, Report 53229 on September 4, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P5.), on 4 September 2009, at around 12.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from B.), an envelope containing the sum of 39,500 euros in the form of 500 euro notes, mainly with the circumstance that the theft was committed with violence, alternatively without this aggravating circumstance.

On September 4, 2009, at around 12:10 p.m., B.) went to platform 10 CD at Luxembourg railway station to take the train to Trier.

In the corridor of the train, an elderly person suddenly stepped into his path and asked him something in a language unknown to B.).

Due to this abrupt stop, the person following B.) jostled him. During this jostling, an envelope containing 39,500 euros was taken from his back pocket without his knowledge.

Once off the train, B.) found the man who had blocked his path. When he wanted to speak to this man, another man joined them and said in German, “Brief im Zug abgegeben.”

“Brief im Zug abgegeben translates to “Letter handed over on the train”.

The train conductor, however, informed B.) that no envelope had been given to him.

All the defendants have confessed to the facts, except with regard to the aggravating circumstance of violence.

P5.) spotted the victim and informed the others; P3.) stood in front of the victim, blocking his path; P1.) removed the envelope from the pocket and then dropped it on the ground, and P2.) [Heit] picked it up and carried it away.

The Court of Appeals found the circumstances of the reported incident warranted the charge of theft with violence (an aggravated charge over standard theft).

The theft committed with violence conviction with respect to this incident was upheld against Heit and coconspirators P1, P3 and P5.

Criminal Offense #4, Report 1191 on September 14, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P4.) and P5.), on 8 September 2009, at around 2.15 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Brussels, of having fraudulently removed from E.), an envelope containing the sum of 6,000 euros.

On September 8, 2009, E.) filed a complaint with investigators after an envelope containing €6,000 had been stolen from her handbag.

The theft took place around 2:15 p.m. on the train to Brussels, while she was sitting in a compartment.

P6.) distracted the victim by dropping her glasses. The victim also stated that she noticed P5.) watching her while she was putting away the money she had just withdrawn from the bank.

It also emerges from the photos taken by the surveillance cameras that at the time of the events, P4.), P6.) and P5.) were on the train heading to Brussels and that P1.) and P2′.) [Heit] were on the platform from which the train to Brussels departed.

It also emerges from the wiretaps that P4.) informed P6.) that he had just noticed a woman who had two or three pieces of cutlery on her. P1.) gave instructions to P2′.) [Heit] that he should continue to P5.) and P6.).

Not sure if it’s a lost in translation thing or French slang but “cutlery” (couverts in French), appears to refer to stealable items on the victims.

At the public hearing, P4.) confessed to having committed the theft.

He maintained that he shared the proceeds of the theft only with P2′.) [Heit]. P6.) retracted the confession he had made before the investigating judge.

Citing the “victim’s statements, surveillance photos and telephone tapping”, the Court of Appeals upheld convictions pertaining to this reported incident against Heit and coconspirator P6.

Criminal Offense #5, Report 1310 on September 17, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P4.), P5.) and P3.), on 17 September 2009, at around 2.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from F.), an envelope containing the sum of 7,000 euros.

On September 17, 2009, F.) had an envelope containing 7,000 euros stolen. The theft took place on the train to Germany.

On the train, a man distracted F.) by first asking for a pen and then asking her about her train journey.

Meanwhile, F.’s partner, G.), was on the platform smoking. He was also carrying an envelope containing a large sum of money.

At the hearing, P1.), P3.) and P2′.) [Heit] admitted to having committed these acts. P1.) and P2′.) [Heit] specified, however, that the sum involved was 8,000 euros.

It appears from the telephone taps that P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4. ), P1.), P6.) and P5.) spotted, observed and followed the couple F.)-G.) respectively. It was finally P2′.) [Heit] who informed P3.) that the theft on F.) had taken place.

P1.) distracted the victim and P2.) [Heit] stole the envelope. P3.) had spotted the couple.

The Court of Appeals upheld convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P1, P3, P4, and P6.

Criminal Offense #6, Report 1416 on October 7, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit] and P3.), on 7 October 2009, at around 3.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Brussels, of having fraudulently removed from H.), an envelope containing the sum of 1,600 euros.

On 7 October 2009, H.) filed a complaint for the theft of an envelope containing 1,600 euros.

On the day of the incident, he withdrew some money, putting the remainder in an envelope he kept in the inside pocket of his jacket.

On the train to Brussels, H.) and his wife noticed a man who, as he passed by, dropped his glasses.

Both H.) and his wife helped the man retrieve his glasses. A discussion about a missing prescription lens ensued. After the man left, H.) noticed that the envelope containing the money was missing.

It is clear from both the telephone taps and the photos from the surveillance cameras that P6.), P2′.) [Heit] and P3.) participated in this theft.

At the hearing, the three defendants confessed to the facts. They stated that P3.) distracted the couple, P6.) stole the envelope and then gave it to P3.) who gave it to P2′.) [Heit].

The Court of Appeals upheld convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P3 and P6.

Criminal Offense #7, Report 1417 on October 9, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit] and P3.), on 9 October 2009, at around 3:07 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Brussels, of having fraudulently removed from I.) an envelope containing the sum of 2,000 euros.

On 9 October 2009, I.) filed a complaint after an envelope containing 2,000 euros was stolen from him on the train from Luxembourg to Brussels.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 9 October 2009, P2′.) [Heit] informed P3.) that P6.) had stolen money from a victim in the first carriage of the Luxembourg-Brussels train.

P3.) offered to observe the train’s departure in order to prevent the victim from getting off the train to file a complaint.

At the hearing, P6.), P2′.) [Heit] and P3.) admitted to having shared the proceeds of the theft between the three of them.

As regards the fraudulent removal of the envelope, P6.) confessed to this fact. However, it does not appear from the investigation conducted in question that P2′.) [Heit] and P3.) actively participated in the preparatory acts of the fraudulent removal, respectively in the acts which consummated it.

Indeed, P2′.) [Heit] declared that he arrived too late and P3.) only observed the victim after the theft had been committed, in order to check whether a complaint for theft should be made.

If I’m understanding correctly, the Court of Appeals upheld convictions on lesser charges pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirator P3. Heit and P3 were also liable for receiving proceeds of the 2000 EUR stolen.

P6’s original conviction was upheld in its entirety.

Criminal Offense #8, Report 1418 on October 12, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.) and P7.) on 12 October 2009, at around 2.00 p.m., at the Gare de Luxembourg, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from J. an envelope containing a minimum sum of 4,000 US dollars, primarily with the circumstance that the theft was committed with the aid of violence, alternatively without this aggravating circumstance.

On October 12, 2009, J.) filed a complaint after an envelope containing between 4,000 and 5,000 US dollars was stolen from him.

He stated that he and his wife boarded the train from Luxembourg to Trier. At one point, a man approached J .) ‘s wife and asked her where first class was.

After J.) ‘s wife replied that she didn’t know, the man put himself between her and her husband. At that moment, another person approached J.) from the back.

J.) found himself trapped between the two men. In his complaint, he stated that he could no longer move freely.

Shortly after, the two men left the train. J.) realized that the envelope containing the money had been stolen shortly after when a conductor boarded the train.

J.) recognized P3.) from the photos shown to him as one of the people who had trapped him on the train.

It is clear from the telephone tapping that P2′.) [Heit], P5.), P6.) P4.) and P7.) participated in the preparatory acts respectively in the acts which consummated the theft.

It follows that, following the identification of the victim, the defendants all ensured surveillance of the victim, respectively of his wife and of the train conductor.

At the hearing P6.), P3.), P5.) and P2’.) [Heit] admitted to having participated in the facts, but they contested the aggravating circumstance of the violence.

However, it is sufficiently clear from the above developments (page 14) and from the statements of the victim J.) before the investigators that minor violence was used against him, as he was pushed at the time of the robbery.

The Court of Appeals upheld the theft with violence convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P3 to P7.

Criminal Offense #9, Report 1430 on October 13, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.) and P7.), on 13 October 2009, at around 4.15 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently stolen from K. ), three envelopes containing a total of 5,000 euros and 200,000 Danish kroner, mainly with the circumstance that the theft was committed using violence, subsidiarily, as thieves caught in the act, of having used violence or threats against K.), either to maintain possession of the three stolen envelopes containing a total of 5,000 euros and 200,000 Danish kroner, or to ensure their escape and very subsidiarily, of having fraudulently stolen from K.), three envelopes containing a total of 5,000 euros and 200,000 Danish crowns.

On 13 October 2009, K. filed a complaint after being robbed of 5,000 euros and 200,000 Danish kroner. He explained that he had put the 5,000 euros in one envelope and 100,000 Danish kroner in two other envelopes.

K.) had taken a seat in a compartment on the Luxembourg-Trier train when a man asked him for help finding his seat on the train. K.) briefly left his compartment to inform the man to speak to the train conductor.

When he turned around, another man was blocking his access to his compartment.

K. ) shouted at the man to let him through, but the man resisted and did everything he could to block his way. K.) stated that the man touched him when he refused to let him through. Both men subsequently left the train.

K.) again saw a man holding his three envelopes, jump from the carriage onto the tracks and climb back up the train. He got out again and then fled down the stairs. Despite K.’s shouts, the men could not be stopped.

Based on photos shown to him, K.) recognized P5.) as the person who had blocked his access to his compartment and P6.) as the person who had asked him for the information.

It is clear from the telephone taps that P5.), P4.) and P6.) participated in the fraudulent theft of the three envelopes. They are also confessing to the material facts, except for the aggravating circumstance of violence.

However, it should be noted in this regard that this aggravating circumstance is sufficiently established in law by the statements made by the victim before the reporting officers and the legal arguments above.

It is clear from K.)’s statements that P5.) used minor violence to prevent him from returning to his compartment. This maneuver allowed P4.) to steal the three envelopes.

It does not appear from the investigation carried out in question that P3.), P2′.) and P7.) participated in the theft.

However, it appears from P2′.) [Heit] that he admitted to having received 30,000 Danish kroner from this theft. P3.) also admitted to having received Danish kroner from P4.) in payment of gambling debts.

However, it does not appear from the investigation conducted in question that P7.), even though he made inquiries about the exchange rate of Danish kroner, that he received a share of this money.

The Court of Appeals acquitted coconspirator P7 on his conviction pertaining to this incident.

Heit and coconspirator P3 were acquitted on charges relating to the theft but charges related to receiving proceeds from a theft offense were upheld.

The original convictions of coconspirators P4, P5 and P6 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #10, Report 1431 on October 14, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.) and P7.), on 14 October 2009, at around 2.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from L.), an envelope containing 10,000 euros, mainly with the circumstance that the theft was committed using violence, alternatively without this aggravating circumstance.

On 14 October 2009, L.) filed a complaint with the ticketing officers that an envelope containing 10,000 euros had been stolen from him on the Luxembourg-Trier train as it stopped at Luxembourg station.

In the train corridor, L.) was jostled by several people. One of the men involved in this jostling even made L.) spin on his axis. Following this jostling, the envelope containing the 10,000 euros had disappeared.

Based on photos submitted to him, L.) recognized P3.) and P2′.) [Heit] as having been involved in the stampede.

In view of the telephone tapping, it is also necessary to establish the active participation of P5.), P7 .) and P6.).

However, it does not emerge from the same telephone tapping that P4.) participated in these acts. He felt he was being watched by a train conductor on the platform for trains leaving for Belgium, so he did not want to join the others on platform 10 for the train leaving for Trier.

It has also not been established that he received any of the loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted coconspirator P4 on his conviction pertaining to this incident. Convictions against Heit and coconspirators P3, P5, P6 and P7 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #11, Report 1429 on October 16, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.) and P7.), on 15 October 2009, at around 1.15 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from C.), two envelopes containing a total of 30,000 euros, mainly with the circumstance that the theft was committed using violence, and alternatively, without this aggravating circumstance.

The error contained in the referral order should be corrected, as the train at the stop in which the events took place was bound for Brussels and not, as erroneously indicated, bound for Trier.

On October 16, 2009, C.) filed a complaint after being the victim of a robbery on October 15, 2009.

He stated that on the day of the incident he had 30,000 euros on him, a sum he was carrying in the inside pocket of his coat. He took the train from Luxembourg at 1:24 p.m. to go to Brussels.

It was only once he arrived in Brussels that he realized that the envelope containing the money had disappeared.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 15 October 2009 at around 12:59 p.m. P2′.) [Heit] called P7.) to inform him that he had spotted a victim pulling at his coat.

He suggested to P7.) that he check if there was anything in the inside pocket as he passed by.

At around 1:09 p.m., C.) went to platform 1 towards the train leaving for Brussels. P6.), who was boarding the train, went back down to the platform when he saw C.).

P6.) boarded one minute after C.) in the same compartment of the train. He was joined by P5.), P3.), P2′.) [Heit] and P4.). They all boarded the same train carriage as the victim, except for P2′.) [Heit], who remained on the platform.

Based on the surveillance photos, it was established that the first to exit the train was P4.), followed by P6.), P3.) and finally P5.). They all crossed the tracks to pass in front of the train.

They were finally joined by P2′.) [Heit], who also passed in front of the train. They subsequently shared the loot.

At the hearing P6.), P2′.) [Heit], P4.) and P5.) confessed.

P6.) distracted the victim together with P4.) and P5.), by dropping his glasses. While the victim was helping him look for and retrieve a missing screw from the glasses, P4.) removed the envelope that was in the coat on the luggage rack in the compartment.

P7.) ‘s active participation is sufficient legal evidence of the wiretapping.

In view of the above, it is nevertheless appropriate to acquit the defendants of the offence of theft by means of violence, even though it does not appear from the investigation carried out in question that violence, even minor, was used against the victim.

The Court of Appeals upheld the theft conviction but acquitted Heit and coconspirators P3 to P7 on aggravated theft with violence charges.

Criminal Offense #12, Report 619 on November 25, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.) and P4.), on 6 July 2009, at around 2.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stopped train, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified an envelope containing a sum of money in US dollars not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 6 July 2009, P1.) was in telephone communication with P4.). Both were observing potential victims, looking for “VERTAKO” (envelopes), a term commonly used by pickpockets operating at Luxembourg station, as is sufficiently clear from the investigation conducted in question.

At one point, P4.) informed P1.) that the victim had “American” envelopes (“jene amerikanischen”).

It also appears from the taps that the two people observed a train departing for Germany at platform 9, in order to check
whether they could return tomorrow.

P1.) spoke with the victim and remained until after the train had departed. Subsequently, P1.) telephoned his wife to inform her that he had a surplus of 800 US dollars and that he had no more euros. He also informed his wife that he will be taking P4 back to France and will return thereafter.

It follows from the investigation carried out in question that in the present case, a theft took place after the potential victim was spotted.

The theft was followed by observation of the victim to determine whether a complaint had been filed, leading to increased surveillance of the area around the station over the following days.

It is of little importance in this case that the victim did not file a complaint and that the amount of the loot is not known, whereas it is clear from the investigation carried out in question that a theft was committed.

The Court of Appeals upheld the theft convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirators P1 and P4.

Criminal Offense #13, Report 620 on November 25, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P4.) and P2′.) [Heit], on 8 July 2009, at around 3:00 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stopped train heading to Belgium, of having fraudulently removed from a man not otherwise identified an envelope containing the sum of 2,000 euros.

The wiretaps show that on Wednesday, July 8, 2009, P1.), P4.) and P2′.) [Heit] were at Luxembourg station observing potential victims.

At one point, P2′.) [Heit] called P1.) and asked him to join him on the platform of the Belgian train after he had just spotted an elderly man wearing a coat.

About ten minutes later, P4.) called P1.) to inform him that they had given the envelope to the victim even though it did not contain enough money. This fact is confirmed by the call from P2′.) [Heit] to P1.), shortly after the call from P4.).

It should be remembered that theft is an instantaneous offense which is completed at the time of fraudulent removal. The fact that the thief returned the stolen item to the victim after the theft does not make the offence disappear.

The offence of money laundering as worded by the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not, however, of a nature to be retained in this case, whereas the temporary detention and the almost immediate restitution of the object of the primary offence to the victim are not of a nature to constitute an offence under Articles 506-1 3) and 506-4 of the Criminal Code.

The Court of Appeals acquitted Heit and coconspirators P1 and P4 of money laundering convictions pertaining to this incident.

Criminal Offense #14, Report 623 on November 25, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.) and P2′.) [Heit], on 9 July 2009, at around 2:00 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on July 9, 2009, at around 1:55 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] informed P1.) that he had spotted a potential victim using a wheelchair.

At 2:14 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] informed P1.) that no one had left the train he was observing at the start. P2′.) [Heit] also asked P1.) if anything had happened, a question to which P1.) responded at 2:18 p.m. by informing P2′.) [Heit] that he would bring him his share.

In the CCTV photos taken at 2:07 p.m., P1.) and P2′.) [Heit] can be seen crossing the footbridge. At 2:08 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] remained on the footbridge while P1.) continued alone towards their car.

At 2:14 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] calls P1.) and asks him how much they got. At 2:18 p.m. (Wortprotokoll 124) P1.) calls P2′.) [Heit] and tells him that he will bring him his “TAL” (part of the loot).

The Court of Appeals upheld the theft convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirator P1.

Criminal Offense #15, Report 630 on November 25, 2009 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], on July 14, 2009, at around 1:20 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed a book and a train ticket from a person not otherwise identified.

It appears from the telephone tapping (Wortprotokoll 79) that on 14 July 2009 P2′.) [Heit] called P4.) at 13:24 to inform him that he had just taken a book and a train ticket from a victim’s pocket.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction pertaining to this incident against Heit.

Criminal Offense #16, Report 11 on January 5, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P4.) and P3.), on 15 July 2009, at around 12:15 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train to Trier, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 15 July 2009, P2′.) [Heit] was informed by P4.) that the victim spotted by the latter was heading towards the German train. P2′.) [Heit] replied that they were coming.

At 12.07, P2′.) [Heit] called P3.) to tell him to come to the German train. At 12.15, P3.) informed P2′.) [Heit] that there had been something, thousands (“MILJA”).

At 12.19 hours, P4.) called P2′.) [Heit], to tell him that they had picked up a victim and were sitting on the opposite train and that the victim’s train had left without her getting off.

The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P3 and P4.

Criminal Offense #17, Report 20 on January 11, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), on 20 August 2009, at around 3:00 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed an envelope with unknown contents from an otherwise unidentified person of Asian origin.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 20 August 2009, P1.) was called by P4.). P1.) then explained to him that there was a “Chinese” or a “Japanese” and that he had taken an empty envelope from him.

The Court of Appeals upheld the conviction pertaining to this incident against coconspirator P1.

Criminal Offense #18, Report 22 on January 11, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P4.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P5.), on 26 August 2009, at around 12.20 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train heading to Belgium, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on Wednesday, August 26, 2009, P5.), P3.) and P4.) spotted a potential victim, whom they followed and observed.

It was ultimately P2.) [Heit] who “worked” the victim. P1.) observed the train as it departed, following the robbery committed by P2.) [Heit].

In view of the above, P1.) should be acquitted of all the offences with which he is charged, since it does not appear from the investigation carried out in question that he participated in acts preparatory to the theft or in acts which consummated it, nor has it been established that he received a share of the proceeds of the theft.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the conviction pertaining to this incident against coconspirator P1. Convictions against Heit and coconspirators P3 to P5 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #19, Report 56 on January 20, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.) and P4.), on 19 August 2009, at around 12.00 hours, at Luxembourg Station, on the stopped train towards Trier, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise determined a sum of money of 9,500 euros.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 19 August 2009, P1.) was called by P4.) about a potential victim who had put something in his back pocket and was heading towards platform 10 for a train to Germany.

It also appears from the taps that persons not currently being prosecuted assisted P1.) and P4.) in the events, in particular while observing the departing train.

It finally emerged from the telephone taps that P1.) told P4.) that he had stolen “9,500” and the latter told him to share this loot between the two of them.

The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirators P1 and P4.

Criminal Offense #20, Report 56 on January 20, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P4.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P5.), on 26 August 2009, at around 1 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stationary train, of having fraudulently removed a sum of money of 2,500 euros from a man not otherwise identified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 26 August 2009, at 12.57.00 hours, P4.) asked P1.) to observe a victim at departure.

At 12.57.42 hours, P5.) informed P2′.) [Heit] that he had just taken a “TOP” (large packet) of two “UGLA” (one hundred notes) at the “P”.

P1.) called P2′.) [Heit] at 12.58.46 hours to tell him that they had taken it. At 13.07.05 hours, P4.) asked P1.) if he had already left.

At 13.09.19 hours, P4.) asked P1.), after learning that the train had left, to call P3.) and P2′.) [Heit] who were on the platform of the Belgian train.

Finally at 13.26.43 hours, P5.) informed P1.) that he had “2.5” which he went to put in a safe place.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to retain P4.) and P5.) in the context of the charges against them.

However, with regard to P1.), P2′.) and P3.) there is doubt as to their active participation in the offence of theft, whereas P1.) was only called by P4.) to observe the train at departure, that is, after the theft.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P1 and P3. Convictions against coconspirators P4 and P5 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #21, Report 57 on January 20, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P4.), P2′.) [Heit] and P5.), on 2 September 2009, at around 12:56 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stopped train heading to Trier, of having fraudulently removed a wallet from a person not otherwise identified.

The telephone taps show that on 2 September 2009 at 12:56 hours, P2′.) [Heit] called P5.) to ask him where his “SNUTA” (his bag) was.

P5.) replied that he had taken it. A minute later, P2′.) [Heit] called P4.) to tell him to watch for the departing train.

In view of the above, the court finds that there remains a doubt as to the commission of the theft as stated by the Public Prosecutor.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P4 and P5.

Criminal Offense #22, Report 58 on January 20, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P4.), P2′.) [Heit] and P3.), on 3 September 2009, at around 2.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stationary train, of having fraudulently removed a wallet from a woman not otherwise identified.

The wiretaps show that on 3 September 2009 at 2.12pm, P2′.) [Heit] called P4.) to ask him if he should stay and watch the train depart. P4 .) replied that he had taken a wallet, but that he had put it back.

Since the returned wallet was sticking out, P4.) asked P2′.) [Heit] to monitor the departing train. Active participation by P3.) in the theft does not result from the investigation conducted in question.

There is also no reason to hold P2′.) [Heit] in the links of the charge brought against him by the Public Prosecutor under II. 22) of the summons to the accused, whereas active participation on his part in the facts which prepared or respectively committed the offence is not reported.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirator P3. The conviction against coconspirator P4 was upheld.

Criminal Offense #23, Report 63 on January 22, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P5.), on 28 August 2009, at around 12.50 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stationary train, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the wiretaps that on 28 August 2009 at 12:50, P5.) called P2′.) [Heit] to inform him that he had spotted a potential victim with a backpack. P2′.) [Heit] replied that he was coming and asked P5.) to call P1.).

The same day at 12:51 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] called P1.) to ask him to come to the French train. P2′.) [Heit] again made a potential victim with a large wallet and P1.) asked him if he let her go like that.

Finally P1.) asked P2′.) [Heit] to join them while they were observing a potential victim with a backpack.

It does not follow from the investigation carried out in question that a theft took place on 28 August 2009.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P1, P3 and P5.

Criminal Offense #24, Report 66 on January 25, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P2′.) [Heit], P4.), P5.) and P6.), on 9 September 2009, at around 4.20 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed an envelope from a woman not otherwise identified.

It appears from the wiretaps that on 9 September 2009 at 4:16 p.m., P6.) was called by P5.). P6.) told him about a woman who had an envelope.

He asked P5.) to call the others. At 4:17 p.m., P6.) called P2′.) [Heit] to inform him about the woman with the envelope. At some point, P6.) saw P4.) coming.

At 4:21 p.m., P2′.) [Heit] called P6.) to inform him that he had taken out the envelope, but that he put it back even though it did not contain any money.

It does not follow from the investigation conducted in question that P1.) participated in the theft of 9 September 2009.

Nor does it follow from the investigation conducted in question that P5.) and P4.) participated in the theft. It is true that the wiretaps show that they were called to the scene, but this does not, however, indicate active participation in the theft.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirators P1, P4 and P5. The convictions against Heit and coconspirator P6 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #25, Report 67 on January 25, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.) and P6.), on 15 September 2009, at around 3.00 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone tapping that on 15 September 2009, at 2.56 p.m., P1.) called P5.).

The latter informed P1.) that they stole an envelope from a victim who had left it in his compartment on the train before going to the toilet. At 2:58 p.m., P5.) confirmed this to P6.).

The theft was further confirmed at 3:09 p.m. by a telephone tap on telephone lines used at the time by persons not covered by these proceedings.

At 4:27 p.m., P2.) [Heit] informed P6.) that the day’s loot amounted to their usual standard, which according to P6.) was 28,000.

It does not appear from the investigation carried out in question that P1.), P3.), P4.), and P6.) participated in the theft with which they were accused by the Public Prosecutor.

Nor does it follow beyond doubt from P2 ‘s sole assertion regarding the day’s loot that he participated in the theft as he is accused of under II. 25). Nor has it been established that they received part of this loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P1, P3, P4 and P6. The conviction against coconspirator P5 was upheld.

Criminal Offense #26, Report 67 on January 25, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P4.), P5.) and P6.), on 21 September 2009, at around 12.50 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 21 September 2009 at 12:39 pm, P6.) was called by P4.) who informed him that they had spotted a “FRAJER” (potential victim) who had something in the back pocket of his trousers.

After receiving the necessary information, P6.) stated that he was going to work on it.

At 12:48 pm P6.) was called by P5.) who asked him to go to P4.) ‘s location so that he could work on the victim’s inside pocket.

P6.) refused expressing concern over being recognised.

At 12:50 pm, P5.) called P6.) again to tell him that it was a “BANANA” (large bundle of money), which was confirmed by P4.) at 12:50 pm. The wiretaps also revealed that the three defendants met in a cafe to share the loot.

The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirators P4, P5 and P6.

Criminal Offense #27, Report 188 on March 26, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P1.), P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P5.) and P6.), on 17 September 2009, at around 4.09 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stationary train, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 17 September 2009, P2′.) [Heit] spotted a potential victim whom he reported to P6.) and asked him to also call P3.).

P6.) was next to the victim when P3.) was also nearby. P1.) tried to distract the victim. P5.) observed the theft from a distance.

It was ultimately P2′.) [Heit] who committed the theft. P5.) and P3.) again observed the departing train.

The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P1, P3, P5 and P6.

Criminal Offense #28, Report 196 on April 1, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P6.), on 5 October 2009, at around 12:15 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, on a stationary train, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 5 October 2009 at 12:15 p.m., P6.) called P2′.) [Heit] that he had just spotted a potential victim.

P6.) further informed P2′.) [Heit] that the victim had hung his jacket in his compartment.

At 12:18 p.m. P2′.) [Heit] called P3.) and then P6.) to inform them that he had robbed the victim and asked P3.) to observe the departing train.

It does not follow from the above that P3.) participated in the acts which prepared or consummated the theft. Nor has it been established that he received part of the loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the conviction pertaining to this incident against coconspirator P3. The convictions against Heit and coconspirator P6 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #29, Report 198 on April 1, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P6.), on 6 October 2009, at around 4:24 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on Tuesday, October 6, 2009 at 4:25 p.m., P2.) [Heit] called P3.).

He told him, in particular, that he was taking the money back to the car and ordered P3.) to go to the station hall to try to locate potential victims.

It appears from the investigation conducted in this case that the defendants, once a robbery had been successful, often stored the loot from the robbery in the cars in which they came to Luxembourg.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that P2.) [Heit] has just committed a robbery and is on his way to put the money in the car.

However, it does not appear from the investigation conducted in question that P3.) and P6.) participated in this theft. Nor does it appear from the investigation conducted in question that P6.) received a share of the loot.

While P2′.) [Heit] informed P3.) that he was going to put the money in the car, the court finds that P3.) received a share of the loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirators P3 (theft) and P6.

The convictions against Heit (all charges) and conspirator P3 (holding money determined to be from the proceeds of the theft offence), was upheld.

Criminal Offense #30, Report 221 on April 13, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P3.) and P6.), on 8 October 2009, at around 2:23 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the telephone taps that on 8 October 2009 at 2:09 p.m. P2′.) [Heit] called P3.) to tell him about a victim he had spotted.

At 2:17 p.m. he called P3.) again to tell him exactly who the victim was. At 2:23 p.m.

P2′.) [Heit] called P6.) who confirmed to him “Gut, ich werde an diesem bleiben.”

“Gut, ich werde an diesem bleiben” translates to “Well, I’ll stick to this one”.

At 2:24 p.m. P6.) called P2′.) [Heit] to tell him that the victim had left and that everything was in order. P2′.) [Heit] further informed P6.) that the victim was full of hundred-dollar bills.

The Court of Appeals upheld the convictions pertaining to this incident against Heit and coconspirators P3 and P6.

Criminal Offense #31, Report 253 on April 22, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.), P6.) and P7.), on 12 October 2009, at around 4.00 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

It appears from the phone taps that on 12 October 2009 at 3:54 p.m., P5.) was called by P6.) who told him about a potential victim that he could not work with himself.

At 3:55 p.m., P5.) called P4.) to inform him that P6.) ‘s victim had an envelope in a newspaper in her bag.

At 3:58 p.m., P4.) called P5.) to inform him that P6.) ‘s victim has fifty-euro notes, which P5.) confirmed. It also emerges from this telephone conversation that P3.) spoke with the victim.

At 3:58 p.m., P2′.) called P6.) to tell him not to do it and to inform him that he, P2′.) [Heit], can rob the victim, that the bag is open. It is P6.) who replies that he will take it back.

At 3:59 p.m., P2’.) [Heit] received the following SMS from P5.) “Unter der Zeitung”.

“Unter der Zeitung” translates to “Under the newspaper”.

At 4:01 p.m., P6.) informed P2′.) [Heit] that he had robbed the victim and that he was going to put the loot in the latter’s car.

It does not appear from the investigation carried out in question that P7.) participated in the theft accused of him by the Public Prosecutor under sub 31) a), or that he received a share of the loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted the conviction pertaining to this incident against coconspirator P7. The convictions against Heit and coconspirators P3 to P6 were upheld.

Criminal Offense #32, Report 261 on April 27, 2010 from the Grand Ducal Police, SREC (organized crime investigations unit)

The Public Prosecutor accuses P2′.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.), P6.) and P7.), on 20 October 2009, at around 4.10 p.m., at Luxembourg Station, of having fraudulently removed from a person not otherwise specified a sum of money not otherwise specified.

On 20 October 2009 at 16:09, P2′.) [Heit] called P6.). The latter informed P2′.) that he had spotted a potential victim and needed someone to distract the victim.

P2′.) [Heit] advised him to call P3.), whereupon P6.) replied that P3.) was standing next to him.

At 16:11, P2′.) [Heit] was called by P5.). A discussion about potential victims ensued and the positions of P7.) and P4.) were discussed.

At 16:12, P2′.) [Heit] informed P4.) that in the second carriage of the train to Belgium a victim had been robbed by P6.).

At 17:06, P2′.) called P5.) to tell him that the loot would be used to pay for drinks that evening.

P5.) replied that P3.) had shared the loot. On this P2′.) [Heit] insisted that the loot be used to pay for drinks and the rest of the loot, at P7.’s suggestion, to play roulette.

In view of the above, it must be concluded that there was a theft that day, but that doubt remains as to the participation of the various defendants in the theft offence as worded by the Public Prosecutor, except with regard to P6.).

Indeed, it appears from the telephone tap that from 4:09 p.m. discussions about several potential victims were in progress.

At 4:12 p.m. P2′.) [Heit] reported a theft committed by P6.), but at 5:06 p.m., almost an hour after the theft, a discussion between P2′.) [Heit] and P5.), with an intervention by P7.), revolved around a sharing of the loot by P3.).

It must therefore be concluded that they obtained a share of the loot.

The Court of Appeals acquitted convictions pertaining to this incident against coconspirator P4. Heit and coconspirators P3, P5 and P7 were acquitted of theft charges.

Convictions of holding a sum of money linked to a theft offense against Heit and co-conspirators P3, P5 and P7 were upheld. The original conviction against coconspirator P6 was upheld in its entirety.

Organized crime and criminal association charges

Heit and his coconspirators were charged with participation in organized crime and criminal assocation. The Court of Appeals addressed these charges separately from the previously cited thirty-two criminal offenses.

On acting in criminal assocation, the Court of Appeals found;

In the present case, each defendant vigorously contests the existence of a criminal association and therefore also personal participation in the main or secondary activity of such an association.

It is therefore up to the Court to assess for each defendant whether he or she was actually part of an organised gang and to do this, it is required to take into consideration the purpose of the gang and the professional qualifications of its members (cf. A. MARCHAL & JP JASPAR, Criminal Law, Theoretical and Practical Treatise, Volume III, Chapter II, Criminal Association, No. 3046).

In this case, none of the defendants reside in Luxembourg. The defendants, apart from P7.), confessed to having come to Luxembourg to steal.

P7. ‘s assertion that he only came to Luxembourg to have a good time with acquaintances and to gamble in casinos is, moreover, contradicted by the evidence in the investigation.

It is clear from the telephone taps that P2′.) [Heit] spoke with him at length to persuade him to come to Luxembourg to join the pickpockets (see report 188 of 26 March 2009; report 180, reference B99).

P7.) also confessed to the facts during his first interrogation by the investigators, a confession which he later retracted.

In addition, they all stayed at the Sirius Hotel in Thionville and traveled by car to Luxembourg.

The cars used were some of the top-of-the-range cars, Jaguar XK 9s, Mercedes MLs, and others. The defendants were mainly dressed in designer clothing and generally well-groomed, so as to blend in with the crowd of professionals traveling by train.

The car journeys were made in small groups, and the vehicles were parked close to each other. Meeting places were arranged in various cafés in the square, and the loot was stored, as quickly as possible after the robbery, in the cars used to travel from Thionville to Luxembourg.

The modi operandi according to which the offenses were committed necessitate the existence of groups, if not at least one group, within which, respectively, a prior distribution of roles took place and for which a communication network within this (these) group(s) was created.

Indeed, potential victims are identified, tailed, observed and finally become the object of robberies.

During the various stages, the participants take turns while passing on information. This exchange of information mainly takes place by mobile phone.

Telephone tracing as well as telephone tapping have demonstrated regular contact between the various participants.

The telephone cards were regularly and systematically changed every week, particularly after a victim noticed the theft and filed a complaint.

The majority of the thefts took place shortly before the departure of the train on which the victim was boarding, in order to prevent the victim from getting off the train and filing a complaint.

The defendants had also set up a system allowing them to check whether the theft had been discovered and a complaint filed with the police, even though one member was supposed to monitor the train’s departure and warn the others.

The identified victims were of a certain age and resided abroad.

Furthermore, the victims were identified by their behavior: while carrying large sums of money, the people patted each other down to check that the money was still there, or made other gestures that informed the defendants.

The procedure was such that after being spotted, the victim was followed and observed, until another person carried out the theft, taking advantage of either a moment of inattention on the part of the victim or a distraction created by other participants.

The maneuvers could take the most diverse forms, ranging from simple requests for information to throwing glasses or coins, including jostling in a train corridor.

The roles of the various participants changed depending on the situation. Their collaboration was so close that a few words or explanations were enough for the person on the other end to know what to do.

A particular language was also used during telephone conversations, such as the inversion of the syllables of a word (VERTAKO, POTPLATA, SNUTA, VATALE, VULO etc.).

The speakers had accessories, such as glasses and caps to make themselves unrecognizable, as well as safety vests, allowing them to cross the tracks without being stopped by railway employees.

Most of them also had train tickets in case a check was carried out on the platforms, which are normally only accessible to passengers with a valid ticket.

Another indication of the conspiracy of the criminals will also be deduced from their common background (convictions, detentions), as is the case for P1.) and P5.).

An anticipatory distribution of the loot also results from the investigation carried out in question, a sharing between all the persons having participated in the theft was agreed before the commission of the offences and even for the participants who did not participate in the theft as such, but who intervened subsequently in order to observe the train at departure.

It follows from the above that it is established in this case that the defendants formed a criminal association among themselves, the agreement between the perpetrators far exceeding the agreement normally encountered in the commonwealth of several perpetrators.

It follows from all of the above that the defendants P1.), P2’.) [Heit], P3.), P4.), P5.), P6.) and P7.) are to be considered as perpetrators with regard to the offence of criminal association.

On being part of a criminal organization, the Court of Appeals found;

In this case, it does not appear from the investigation that such a structure operated in Luxembourg.

While charges related to criminal association were upheld, the Court of Appeals acquitted Heit and his coconspirators on charges related to organized crime.

The Sentencings

At Heit’s and his conspirator’s sentencing, the Court of Appeals noted;

With the exception of P7.), who maintains that he did not participate in any theft, all the other defendants express regret for the stupidities committed and apologize to the victims for the harm caused to them.

With the exception of P7.), they state that they came to Luxembourg because of financial problems, attracted by the lure of easy winnings which they intended to profit from both gambling at the Casino, card games and other illegal games, and pickpocketing around Luxembourg station where many easy victims are said to be found.

However, they did not get rich, since they lost most of the money stolen gambling.

In evaluating the sentences handed down upon conviction, the court of appeals found;

In view of all the evidence in the case, it appears that the offences committed by the defendants were committed on a large scale, with an organisation in place to enable the offences to be committed using the modi operandi described above.

The criminal energy they developed also results from the fact that they travelled practically every day from France to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg for the sole purpose of committing offences.

Even though most of the victims did not file a complaint, the material damage caused in this case is enormous.

Furthermore, the danger to public order emanating from the methodical, organized activity of these criminal associations is obvious.

Indeed, the victims were specifically chosen based on their foreign origin and the reason for their travel to Luxembourg.

Thus, the victims, all of foreign nationality, came to Luxembourg with the aim of withdrawing more or less substantial sums of money.

In view of the above considerations, the significant number of facts held against him and his convictions abroad for similar acts, P2′.) [Heit] should be sentenced to a prison term of seven years and a fine of 5,000 euros.

Just to reiterate, the Court of Appeals sentenced Josip Heit to seven years and a fine of 5000 euros (click to enlarge above). This was based on crimes committed in Luxembourg, in addition to prior convictions abroad.

In view of P2’s [Heit’s] specific criminal record, the Court considers that the latter does not deserve the favour of a suspension.

This is the first I’ve seen mention of Heit’s prior convictions (presumably as Josip Ćurčić). The details of these prior convictions and which country or countries they occurred in is unknown at this time.

It’s also worth noting that, out of the seven defendants, Heit received the longest prison sentence.

With respect to Heit’s coconspirators, the Court of Appeals ruled;

  • P1 had “already been convicted of similar offenses in Germany and France” and was sentenced to 5 years in prison and a 3000 euros fine;
  • P3 received a sentence of 6 years and a 4000 euros fine but, due to a lack of prior convictions, the sentence was partially suspended (2 years);
  • P4 had “already been convicted abroad for similar offenses” and was sentenced to 6 years in prison and a fine of 4000 euros;
  • P5 had “already been convicted of similar offenses in Germany” and was sentenced to 6 years in prison and a fine of 4000 euros;
  • P6 received a sentence of six years and a 4000 euros fine but, due to a lack of prior convictions, the sentence was partially suspended (2 years); and
  • P7 was sentenced to 3 years in prison and a 2000 euros fine

I’m not 100% sure on the reasoning (I’m thinking it’s due to the various acquittals), but the Court of Appeals took it upon itself to slightly reduce the prison sentenced handed out:

  • Josip Heit’s prison sentence was reduced to six years;
  • P1’s prison sentence was reduced to four years;
  • P3’s, P4’s, P5’s and P6’s prison sentences were reduced to five years; and
  • P7’s prison sentence was reduced to thirty months

Public Prosecutors additionally requested the seizure of assets, including luxury cars and “all valuables seized from the defendant’s homes”.

Based on the luxury cars being registered in other people’s names, the Court of Appeals ruled the cars be returned to their registered owners.

One car was registered to P1 but due to a lack of evidence tying the car to the criminal offenses P1 was charged with, the car was ordered returned.

Cell phones used to communicate during committal of the criminal offenses and various amounts of cash were ruled to remain seized.

Finally, restitution running into the thousands of euros was ordered repayable to Heit’s and his conconspirator’s victims.

The Aftermath

In the now publicly suppressed Jutarnji report, Dusan Miljus reported that Heit “was released from prison in Luxembourg in 2012”. The reason Heit was released early is unclear.

Miljus reported that, after release, Heit returned to Croatia. After spending a few years establishing criminal ties to Romanian organized crime, primarily through Alexandru Nicolae Bodi (aka Alex Bodi), Heit made an appearance in MLM through Karatbars International.

Heit’s involvement in Karatbars International took place through GSB Gold Standard Banking Corporation AG (later renamed to GSB Gold Standard Corporation AG).

Mister Helmet cites Heit and Alex Bodi as co-founders of Karatbars International, dating back to 2011. On the right we have Heit and Bodi together at a Karatbars International promo event.

Following Karatbars International’s collapse in mid 2019, Heit went on to launch his own MLM company, GSPartners, in late 2020.

Following over a dozen regulatory fraud warnings across North America, GSPartners collapsed in late 2023.

Heit entered into a settlement with North American securities regulators in September 2024.

North American GSPartners victims in settling jurisdictions have been promised refunds, however settlement proceedings remain ongoing at time of publication.

What began as pickpocketing train passengers in Luxembourg across 2009 and 2010 (and who knows what other crimes before that), continues now through DAO1 and Apertum Foundation.