German judge orders former spy chief August Hanning held in espionage case

August Hanning, the former head of Germany’s foreign intelligence service, was ordered held in pretrial detention by a judge on Wednesday, October 7, a day after his arrest in an espionage and treason investigation. The order puts the 80-year-old under a formal arrest warrant as prosecutors examine allegations that he obtained secret documents from a former aide and used intelligence in dealings connected to a foreign service. Hanning’s lawyer denies wrongdoing.

The court’s decision concerns detention while the case is investigated, not a finding that the allegations are true. Hanning led the Federal Intelligence Service, known as the BND, from 1998 to 2005. His former aide, identified as Manfred D. under German privacy rules, was also arrested on Tuesday and placed under formal arrest by a judge in Karlsruhe on Wednesday.

What German prosecutors allege Hanning and his aide did

Prosecutors suspect Hanning of treasonous espionage, spying out state secrets, attempted treason and espionage. Manfred D. is accused of aiding and abetting treasonous espionage and attempted treason. Those descriptions set out the allegations under investigation; neither man has been found guilty in this case.

According to prosecutors, the two men agreed in 2010 that Manfred D. would supply Hanning with intelligence in exchange for payment. Manfred D. later served as chief of staff to several BND presidents, from 2012 until 2026. Prosecutors estimate that he supplied approximately 2,000 documents over a 12-year period ending in June 2022. Some documents contained classified information, including material intended for internal intelligence briefings to BND executives.

What Hanning’s lawyer says and what remains unknown

Hanning’s lawyer acknowledged that his client possessed confidential documents but denied that he passed on information to Germany’s detriment or for payment, according to the Guardian. The denial directly contests a central part of the prosecutors’ account. The allegations have yet to be tested at trial, and the publicly described evidence does not establish how much information, if any, reached a foreign intelligence service.

Prosecutors have not publicly named the foreign state or intelligence services allegedly involved. They have also withheld details of much of the classified material. The Guardian reported that investigators were examining a possible Azerbaijani intelligence link and that Azerbaijan’s media and broadcasting council denied any connection. That reported line of inquiry does not identify the recipient of any information; prosecutors have not done so.

The federal prosecutor’s office said it was offering no further information beyond its statement. That leaves several consequential questions unresolved: whether the analysis described by prosecutors was delivered, which information may have been exposed, and whether the alleged conduct caused security harm. The number of documents prosecutors say Manfred D. supplied should not be read as a count of documents shown to any foreign service.

How German officials have responded

A spokesperson for Chancellor Friedrich Merz said the government took the case extremely seriously and was supporting investigators. The spokesperson said officials would await the investigation’s findings before deciding whether changes were needed. That position leaves any policy response open while investigators work through the allegations.

Marc Henrichmann, who chairs the parliamentary committee overseeing Germany’s intelligence agencies, said the affair had shocked people in Germany’s intelligence community and abroad. He raised the question of restoring allied services’ trust in the BND, while stressing that the extent of the alleged wrongdoing was still unclear. Several German politicians have called for tighter rules governing former security officials’ private consulting after leaving office.

The concern reaches beyond the alleged transfer of files. Hanning’s years at the top of the BND and Manfred D.’s later service to successive agency presidents put the handling of intelligence and former officials’ access to contacts under scrutiny. The case will remain an allegation unless the evidence establishes what was taken, how it was used and whether anyone outside Germany received protected information.