Ulmen’s lawyer initiated legal action against “Spiegel”, which first reported on Fernandes’ allegations. “Key points” of the reporting were “demonstrably incomplete and wrong,” explained Christian Schertz on Friday evening in Berlin. He also emphasized: “At no time did our client produce and/or distribute deepfake videos of Ms. Fernandes or any other person.”
Schertz emphasized that the events were “unrelated” to the current debate about loopholes in criminal liability for deepfake pornography. He also pointed out that a court in Spain had announced on Friday “that the proceedings in Spain have been suspended due to the lack of an essential qualifying condition for the continuation of the proceedings”.
Fernandes went public last week with allegations of digital sexual violence against her ex-husband Ulmen. She reported her allegations in Spain, and the justice system in Mallorca says she is currently investigating them. They therefore include appropriation of personal status, betrayal of secrets, public insults, regular abuse and serious threats. Ulmen himself denies the allegations and is presumed innocent.
The publication led to a political debate in Germany about digital violence against women. Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig (SPD) subsequently announced that she wanted to close loopholes in the law.
The public prosecutor sees initial suspicion against Ulmen
The Itzehoe public prosecutor’s office in Germany announced that there was initial suspicion against Ulmen. The investigative authority said on Friday that the evaluation of the reporting by the magazine “Spiegel” about the case led to the initial suspicion being confirmed. In criminal law it concerns the accusation of stalking.
As the public prosecutor’s office explained, an investigation that had been discontinued in June 2025 was reopened after the “Spiegel” report. It is now being examined whether other criminal offenses can be considered in addition to the criminal offense of stalking. If convicted, stalking could result in up to three years in prison or a fine, the public prosecutor’s office said. The investigating authority initially did not want to provide any further information.
