A Chinese company would like to swallow Elmos’ chip production in Dortmund. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution sounds the alarm that China is making targeted purchases to put countries under pressure. According to a report, the federal government still wants to agree.
The federal government is currently examining a takeover of the chip production of the Dortmund company Elmos by the Swedish competitor Silex, a subsidiary of the Chinese group Sai Microelectronics. The tests are currently ongoing and have not yet been completed, government circles said to news agencies. The “Handelsblatt” reported, citing government circles, that the government would “probably allow” the takeover. Approval should come next week.
In contrast to the dispute over the entry of the Chinese state shipping company Cosco at a terminal in the port of Hamburg, “in the case of Elmos, there should be agreement between the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Ministry of Economics,” the newspaper reported. The chip technology from Elmos is outdated and there is no risk of know-how leaking out. The Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution advised against the takeover, the “Handelsblatt” reported further. It’s not just about know-how, but about production capacities. According to this, China is making targeted purchases in industries in order to be able to put pressure on individual countries.
Elmos announced at the end of 2021 that it would part with its production at the headquarters in Dortmund. Silex is to take over the plant and the supplies for 85 million euros. With the sale, Elmos, which mainly produces for the automotive industry, intends to give up its own production and instead buy its chips from contract manufacturers.
Chancellor Olaf Scholz defended the cabinet decision on the partial takeover of a terminal at the port of Hamburg by the Chinese state-owned company Cosco. A “good solution” had been found, he said in Athens. The fact that Cosco is now not allowed to take over 35 percent of the terminal as originally planned is “correct, because it is indeed a legitimate concern to say that there must be no false influence on infrastructure”.
