A German court has handed down a life sentence to the man responsible for the Christmas market tragedy that left six dead in Berlin. The verdict, delivered this morning, closes a harrowing chapter for a city still scarred by the attack. As a financial editor, I see parallels to market crashes: the initial shock, the frantic reassessment of risk, and the long, grinding process of recovery.
The trial itself was a microcosm of the fiscal and societal costs that such events impose on the state. The defendant, a failed asylum seeker, had driven a stolen lorry into a crowded market, weaponising a vehicle to maximise carnage. The judge cited ‘the particular gravity of the crime’ in imposing the maximum sentence, a decision that will no doubt be scrutinised by legal scholars and economists alike.
Why? Because the cost of preventing such attacks, the burden on the security apparatus, and the subsequent hit to consumer confidence all feed into the national balance sheet. The German court system, like the Bundesbank, operates with a reputation for stability.
But this case tests the limits of that resilience. The defence argued that the defendant acted alone, suffering from mental illness. The prosecution painted a picture of a calculated terrorist with ideological motives.
Either way, the market for fear just got a boost. I recall the aftermath of the 2016 Nice attack: insurance premiums for public events spiked, governments poured billions into surveillance, and GDP growth took a temporary but noticeable dip. Germany, the engine of Europe, now faces a similar reckoning.
The life sentence removes one variable from the equation, but the systemic risks remain. Inflation of security costs, deflation of public trust. The gilt market barely blinked at the verdict, but that is cold comfort.
For the families of the victims, no sentence can restore their lost capital. As always, the true cost is off the balance sheet.
