Volkswagen's CEO Was Told About Emissions Software Months Before Scandal, Says Report (reuters.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Volkswagen Chief Executive Herbert Diess was told about the existence of cheating software in cars two months before regulators blew the whistle on a multi-billion exhaust emissions scandal, German magazine Der Spiegel said. Der Spiegel's story, based on recently unsealed documents from the Braunschweig prosecutor's office, raises questions about whether VW informed investors in a timely manner about the scope of a scandal which it said has cost it more than $27 billion in penalties and fines.

Responding to the magazine report, the carmaker reiterated on Saturday that the management board had not violated its disclosure duties, and had decided to not inform investors earlier because they had failed to grasp the scope of the potential fines and penalties. Citing documents unsealed by the Braunschweig prosecutor's office, Der Spiegel said Diess was present at a meeting on July 27, 2015 when senior engineers and executives discussed how to deal with U.S. regulators, who were threatening to ban VW cars because of excessive pollution levels. Diess, who had defected from BMW to become head of the VW brand on July 1, 2015, joined the July 27 meeting with Volkswagen's then Chief Executive Martin Winterkorn to discuss how to convince regulators that VW's cars could be sold, a VW defense document filed with a court in Braunschweig in February, shows.

Comments

Time to break up volkwswagen

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope Germany is troubled by this and will figure out a proper punishment and corrective action. Big businesses need to be feared more than big governments

Re:Time to break up volkwswagen

[blindseer]

In other words VW is "too big to fail"? Where have I heard that before?

If a company is "too big to fail" then it is too big to exist. If a nation's economy is so tied up into these large corporations then they are essentially free to break the rules as they please. Break them up into smaller companies and make them compete against each other.

I'm old enough to remember the bailout of the "big three" automakers in the USA. Well, Ford was doing just fine economically but if the government only bailed out the other two then that might be considered some kind of violation of the law. Ford was forced to take the money. At the time Tesla was just salivating at the idea of scooping up Detroit automotive factories at fire sale prices. The workers at those factories might be out of a job for like a month or two, until Tesla was able to finalize the sale and retool for making electric cars. Well, maybe they couldn't make electric cars that quickly but those factories would be making cars under a new badge and with improved efficiency. Tesla would have made out like a bandit on the deal and they'd be on much better financial footing now.

What killed the electric car? That's a question that's been asked many times. The answer is a government too scared to let the market forces work it's way out.

I don't believe that electric cars would dominate today, only 10 years after this automobile industry "crisis". I do believe that we'd probably see an industry more willing to innovate past the problem of tailpipe emissions rather than trying to game the system. We'd likely be seeing more electric hybrids, more natural gas vehicles, and a healthier economy in the long term.

Very likely he knew a lot earlier

[gweihir]

The guy is an engine expert with a reputation of wanting to know all the details at all times. He could probably have looked at the AdBlue numbers and immediately know what was going on. Also has a reputation as a control freak, so nobody will have dared to make these changes without checking with him first. As basically every other car maker with diesel cars (except for the the Japanese, it seems) had this fraud-device in their diesel cars, they will have coordinated on it. Makes sense, because one brand doing much better sticks out and could raise suspicion. I expect this was a coordinated decision a year or so before they started doing it and all the CEOs did sign off on it. No paper-trail, of course.

Re:Only two months? Bullshit

[careysub]

You are most certainly correct. In reading a number of histories of geopolitical affairs (the machinations leading to WWI, Soviet decisions during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Mideast Crisis that led to the Six Day War, the Invasion of Afghanistan) and repeatedly in Israel's nuclear weapons program, decisions were made in closed meetings with no notes taken. It was enough that the lieutants tasked with carrying out the plans and who were present, knew what that were supposed to do.

This is certainly the case here. Top management orchestrated and approved this, but made sure no records were kept.