Computer fraud

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The computer fraud is in German criminal law a crime is, of the 22 section of the Special Section of the Criminal Code (CC) in § 263a is normalized Criminal Code. He is one of the property offenses .

The penal norm of § 263a StGB aims to protect property . To this end, it prohibits actions in which a person, a company or an organization is financially damaged by the manipulation of computers in a fraudulent manner. The model for the offense of computer fraud is that of fraud ( Section 263 StGB), which only covers deceit against people. Therefore, with effect from August 1, 1986 , the legislature decided to introduce a new set of offenses in order to record deceptive acts against computer systems in a sufficiently specific way .

Computer fraud can result in a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine . Computer fraud is the most common offense in the field of computer crime . According to police crime statistics , 86,372 cases of Section 263a StGB were reported in Germany in 2017 . The clearance rate for these offenses is almost 40 percent compared to other crime groups, at an average level.

Normalization

The offense of computer fraud is standardized in § 263a StGB and has been as follows since its last change on December 22, 2003:

(1) Anyone who intends to obtain an unlawful pecuniary advantage for himself or a third party damages the property of another by the result of a data processing operation through incorrect design of the program, through the use of incorrect or incomplete data, through unauthorized use of data or otherwise influenced by unauthorized influence on the process, will be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or with a fine.

(2) Section 263 Paragraphs 2 to 7 apply accordingly.

(3) Anyone who prepares a criminal offense according to paragraph 1 by producing computer programs, the purpose of which is the commission of such an offense, is procured for himself or another, holds for sale, is kept or leaves to someone else, is subject to imprisonment of up to three years or a fine fined.

(4) In the cases of Paragraph 3, Section 149 Paragraphs 2 and 3 apply accordingly.

Because of the standard range of penalties of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine, computer fraud is an offense under Section 12 (2) StGB . As with the basic offense of fraud, Section 263 of the Criminal Code, property is a protected legal asset.

History of origin

The offense of computer fraud was included in the second law on combating economic crime of May 15, 1986 with effect from August 1, 1986 in the Criminal Code. The legislature reacted to the fact that electronic data processing systems were regularly the target of criminal acts due to their increasing distribution in business transactions, for example through the unauthorized use of third-party access data. Such acts were not covered by Section 263 of the Criminal Code, as this fact presupposed that the perpetrator had caused a mistake in his victim through an act of deception. Arousing a mistake was impossible with computers, since they had no conception of reality. Therefore, the wording of the fraud paragraph precluded the use of it in cases in which the perpetrator did not outsmart a person but a computer system. An analogous application of fraud to circumstances in which computer systems were manipulated was ruled out from the outset as a violation of the prohibition of analogy under criminal law ( Art. 103 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law ). Even if one constructed that the manipulation of a device would mislead the operator into the fact that the system was being operated properly, those cases would not be recorded in which the manipulating person uses the device with correct data but in an unauthorized manner. This is the case, for example, when someone temporarily acquires someone else's bank card in order to withdraw money. In such cases, there was no breach of custody for a theft ( Section 242 of the Criminal Code) . The same was true if the perpetrator proceeded with a forged code card. Other criminal offenses, such as breach of trust ( Section 266 of the Criminal Code), were also not regularly considered. There was therefore a loophole in the Criminal Code that could only be closed by a new law that adequately took into account the peculiarities of computer crime. Paragraph 1 of the newly created standard describes the offense. In paragraph 2, the legislature added a reference to provisions of the fraud offense relating to the attempt offense and sentencing one.

As part of the sixth Criminal Law Reform Act, the reference in Section 263a (2) of the Criminal Code was extended with effect from April 1, 1998 to include Section 263 (6) and (7) of the Criminal Code, which were newly created within the framework of this Reform Act and contain further provisions on sanctions.

On December 22, 2003, Section 263a of the Criminal Code was expanded by two additional paragraphs through the 35th Amendment to the Criminal Law. This implemented the EU framework decision to combat fraud and counterfeiting in the context of cashless payment methods. This change in the law made preparatory acts unpunished until then a criminal offense. This includes, for example, developing a program with which computer fraud can be committed.

Objective fact

The offense of computer fraud is based on that of fraud. It deviates from this to the extent that computer-specific features dictate that lead to the fact that the criteria for fraud are not met. Because of this close relationship between the two offenses, computer fraud is interpreted closely following the fraud offense § 263 StGB.

The computer fraud is committed by acting on a data processing operation . All technical processes in which data are recorded and linked by programs in such a way that work results, for example calculations, are achieved are referred to as data processing . According to Section 202a (2) StGB, data is information that is stored or transmitted electronically, magnetically or otherwise in an imperceptible way. It is therefore encoded information. The coding does not mean any special encryption. The only thing that matters is the ability to present information in such a way that it can be processed by a computer. This is the case if it can be represented in binary code , as is the case, for example, with digits and letters. The term data thus includes all forms of input into a computer and its outputs . The facts of the case thus include, in particular, work processes within EDP systems, such as electronically performed authenticity checks by money checking programs in machines. Actions in connection with purely mechanical machines are not included in the offense due to the lack of electronic data processing.

Acts

Computer fraud can be committed in four ways: by incorrectly designing a program, by using incorrect or incomplete data, by unauthorized use and by unauthorized influence on the data processing process in any other way. These acts correspond to the act of deception in the case of fraud.

Incorrect design of the program

A program is a work instruction to a computer. Design includes the initial creation and subsequent changes. Under which conditions a program is incorrect is a matter of dispute in jurisprudence. Essentially two approaches have emerged. One judges the inaccuracy of the program according to a civil law, the other according to a fraud-like standard. Representatives of the first-mentioned view argue with the intention of the legislature. This relied on the will of the operator as the decisive factor for comparison. According to this view, there is therefore an incorrect design if the program deviates from the will of the data processing operator. This corresponds to the civil law definition of error, which describes the deviation of the actual quality from the contractually stipulated one as a defect . The opposite view draws a parallel to the offense of fraud. In the case of inaccuracy, it is not based on the will of a person, but on an objective criterion, namely the proper accomplishment of the task set by the operator. The program is therefore incorrect if it does not properly perform the task for which it was designed. This corresponds more to the untruth of a fact, a constituent element of fraud. These two views come to different results, for example, if the client instructs the programmer to incorrectly log balance sheets for the purpose of tax evasion . According to the civil law-oriented view, the computer fraud would be denied, since the program works the way the operator wants it. If one follows the view that is close to fraud, the act of fraud can, however, be assumed because the program is objectively incorrectly accounting.

Relevant cases of incorrect program design are primarily the manipulation of a program itself. However, since a program is composed of data, this action variant only represents a sub-case of the use of incorrect or incomplete data. Therefore, it has hardly any independent meaning in legal practice.

Use of incorrect or incomplete data

Data is used by introducing it into an electronic processing process in any way. The concepts of inaccuracy and incompleteness are based on the concept of deception used in the case of fraud, whereby the use of incorrect data is based on active deception and the use of incomplete data on deception through conclusive action.

Data are incorrect if their content differs from reality. In contrast to the incorrect design of the program, it is undisputed that an objective yardstick is applied to assess the incorrectness of the data, since input data can only be objectively correct or incorrect. Examples of this act are input manipulations, such as using counterfeit EC or credit cards to withdraw money. The use of stolen bank cards is not recorded, since correct data is used here, only not by the authorized person. Another example is the specification of bogus claims as direct debits .

It is controversial in jurisprudence whether the provision of incorrect data in the automated dunning procedure also represents an incorrect use of data. Proponents argue that by providing untrue data, the perpetrator is violating the procedural obligation to be truthful as set out in Section 138 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure and thus committing a deception. Critics object that the mere assertion of a claim leads to the issuance of the order for payment, which is why this order is not based on false facts. In addition, the assumption of computer fraud violates the principle of fraud-related interpretation: a Rechtspfleger who processes an application in the dunning procedure does not worry about the existence of the claim being made when processing such an application, which is why he cannot be deceived about this.

Data are incomplete if they do not adequately reveal essential information about the underlying facts, i.e. if they contain gaps with regard to a relevant fact. However, since incomplete data do not at least partially depict reality correctly, they are also incorrect data. Therefore, incompleteness is only a special case of incorrectness, which is why this feature has no independent relevance.

Unauthorized use of data

Entering incorrect data into an ATM is a major case of unauthorized use of data.

The legislature created the form of unauthorized use of data because scientists and experts in the legislative process doubted that the offense of incorrect use of data includes the misuse of code cards at ATMs. Such cases were a major cause of the creation of computer fraud, which is why the legislature wanted to ensure that they are covered by the new offense.

The wording of this crime is, however, extremely broad and poorly defined. In order not to let the facts get out of hand and in order not to violate the criminal law requirement of certainty , there is consensus in jurisprudence and teaching that the element of the offense should be interpreted restrictively. There is also agreement that this interpretation should be as fraudulent as possible. However, the scope of this interpretation is controversial.

The concept of use corresponds to that of the second form of action. Since the use of incorrect or incomplete data is already subject to this act, the third inspection option records the use of correct data by an unauthorized person. An example of this that often occurs in practice is the use of third-party PIN or TAN numbers.

Due to the broad wording of the offense, it is controversial how far the scope of the offense should extend. This dispute is reflected in the question of the conditions under which the use of data is considered unauthorized.

According to one view that interprets the facts broadly, unauthorized use is already present if the data is introduced into the processing process against the actual or presumed will of the operator of the data processing system.

Another view, known as computer-specific interpretation, seeks a more restrictive handling of the offense. It assumes unauthorized action if the use of data contradicts the will of the operator of the data processing system and this will is reflected in the program design. This applies, for example, if the perpetrator has to overcome a PIN query in order to use the data.

A third view, which is also represented by the case law, establishes the unauthorizedness with the help of a parallel to fraud. According to this view, someone is acting unauthorized if the perpetrator's behavior in the use of data is misleading. This is the case if, assuming that the perpetrator did not enter the data into a computer, but explained to a person that in this hypothetical case there was a deception. If this is the case, the deception equivalence is given, so that the perpetrator acts without authorization. In this hypothetical data processing by a person, however, only those facts can be used which the computer could check. The deception must therefore be created in the data. Otherwise, according to this view, implied deception would also suffice to justify computer fraud, although a computer cannot be implicitly deceived.

Credit cards

A practically significant group of cases of unauthorized use of data is the improper withdrawal of money from an ATM using a credit or debit card. A distinction must be made between several case constellations. If the card user unauthorized withdraws money with a stolen card, this is unauthorized use. If the holder gives the card to the perpetrator and, in consultation with him, withdraws more than the credit limit of the authorized person allows, he uses the access data to the account in an unauthorized manner. However, the more specific offense of Section 266b StGB, the misuse of check and credit cards , is relevant if the perpetrator withdraws the money from an ATM outside the institute. Computer fraud is also being implemented, but it is being suppressed at the competitive level . If, on the other hand, the offender withdraws from an ATM of the institute that issued the card, Section 266b of the Criminal Code does not apply, as the institute is not effectively obliged to make a payment. Therefore, in this case, the perpetrator is liable to prosecution according to § 263a StGB.

It is controversial in jurisprudence which facts are met when the holder has given the offender the card, but the offender withdraws more than the holder has allowed. According to the deceptive equivalent interpretation, this behavior does not constitute computer fraud, since the cardholder gives the perpetrator a power of attorney. Although this power of attorney is limited in terms of the amount of money to be withdrawn, the perpetrator typically does not disclose the content of this power of attorney to a hypothetical bank employee. Therefore, there is a lack of deception equivalence. The other opinions, on the other hand, affirm computer fraud, since the withdrawal of an excessively high amount by an unauthorized person contradicts the will of the authorized person and the opposing will, which no one except the authorized person withdraws money, is reflected in the form of querying the access data in the program.

Transfer in the online banking portal of a bank

The implementation of online transactions using third-party data, for example obtained through phishing , and the ordering of goods in online shops under a third-party name are also part of the offense . The Federal Court of Justice also affirmed computer fraud when the perpetrators influenced the computer-calculated odds in their favor by manipulating a football game that was bet on over the Internet.

Other unauthorized interference with the process

The last action variant of Section 263a of the Criminal Code represents a catch-all offense that includes other interventions that affect the content of information processing. These include, for example, manipulating a gaming machine, influencing the hardware of the device and using an unauthorized recharged telephone card or a dummy telephone card. The case law also subsumed under this fact the empty game of a slot machine with the help of a program that manipulates the course of the game of chance in such a way that the perpetrator can produce the winning image. However, the mere exploitation of a program error is not an element of the offense, as it lacks an act comparable to a deception.

Successful act

A criminal liability for computer fraud presupposes that the act affects the result of a data processing operation and thereby causes financial loss. This criminal success is the computer-specific equivalent to the criminal success of the fraud, causing an error that leads to property damage.

There is financial damage if someone else suffers financial damage. However, according to the prevailing view in jurisprudence, endangering damage is sufficient . This legal concept applies if no financial loss has yet occurred, but the risk of such is so great that it burdens the owner of the property in a similar way to the actual occurrence of damage.

The financial expense of getting a manipulated system ready for its intended use does not represent any financial loss. A hindrance to data processing itself, for example through computer sabotage, is also not a suitable success, since the computer as a means of crime cannot also be a victim . Programming errors that disrupt work processes and thereby cause financial damage are also not a matter of fact.

The financial loss must be a direct consequence of the act. This is lacking, for example, when an electronic immobilizer is overcome, since the financial loss is only caused by a further action, the removal of the vehicle. There is also no direct financial loss through phishing . This is an illegal method of obtaining personal information from Internet users. However, if the perpetrator uses the data obtained through phishing and thereby damages third parties, this represents financial loss.

As in the relationship between fraud and theft, there is also an exclusivity relationship between computer fraud and theft; both facts are therefore mutually exclusive. If there are other criminal acts between the act of manipulation and the shifting of assets, the directness of the damage to the assets is lacking for computer fraud. Therefore, for example, manipulating an electronic access lock of a locked room in order to steal items from it is a theft and not a computer fraud. The theft also applies to outsmarting a money changing machine with the help of a bank note attached to a string, since it is merely manual Action on the machine no work result of the machine is affected.

If the operator of the manipulated computer system and the person damaged in his property are different, the figure of triangular fraud, which is recognized in fraud, applies accordingly.

Subjective fact

The subjective facts of Section 263a StGB are structured like that of fraud. Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for computer fraud requires that the offender act at least with conditional intent with regard to the objective facts . To do this, he must recognize the circumstances of the offense and accept the realization of the facts. In addition, the offender must act with the intention of obtaining an unlawful pecuniary advantage for himself or a third party , i.e. an advantage to which he is not entitled. This advantage must represent the downside of the financial loss. This requirement of equality of material, which also applies to fraud, is not met, for example, if the perpetrator does not want to enrich himself through the transfer of assets to the detriment of the victim, but only through the reward of a third party for the act.

attempt

Due to the nature of the offense of computer fraud, the criminal liability of the attempt in accordance with Section 23, Paragraph 2 of the StGB must be expressly stipulated in the law. This provision is made through the reference in Section 263a of the Criminal Code to Section 263 Paragraph of the Criminal Code, which makes attempting fraud a criminal offense. Attempting computer fraud is therefore a criminal offense.

Preparatory actions

Section 263a (3) of the Criminal Code criminalizes several preparatory acts. The choice of offenses is based on Section 149 (1) of the Criminal Code, the preparation for forging money and stamps. Preparing for computer fraud is liable to prosecution for anyone who creates a computer program, the purpose of which is to commit computer fraud, procures it for himself or for another, sells, stores or leaves it to another. The common object of these acts is a program, the objective of which is the commission of an act according to paragraph 1. The purpose of enabling computer fraud must be the main function of the program. With regard to the wording of the standard, it is unclear whether the program must be the one that is later used to cheat or whether it is sufficient that the program enables the commission of the offense. This question becomes relevant, for example, in the case of Trojans or phishing programs, which are only used to obtain data in order to later use it without authorization. Since the criminal liability of preparatory acts is already the exception in the StGB, such an extension of the criminal liability is rejected by many lawyers, so that the preparatory acts only relate to programs with which the fraud is to be carried out later.

The perpetrator must act with conditional intent to commit a computer fraud when the program was created. He must therefore be aware that the program is intended to be used to commit computer fraud and accept the fact that this act can be carried out.

Litigation and sentencing

By referring to Section 263a of the Criminal Code on the provisions on fraud, its procedural provisions are applied to computer fraud. This includes the rule examples as well as the rules for criminal charges . The act is generally prosecuted ex officio as an official offense. Exceptionally, the criminal prosecution of the offense requires a criminal complaint if the victim of the computer fraud is a relative, guardian or guardian or if the damage caused by the offense is minor.

The act reaches the stage of completion when at least partial property damage occurs. For the completion of a computer fraud occurs when the perpetrator fully achieved the targeted him pecuniary advantage. From this point in time, the statute of limitations begins in accordance with Section 78a StGB . The statute of limitations is five years due to the scope of penalties in accordance with Section 78 (3) StGB.

Law competitions

If further crimes are committed in connection with an act under Section 263a of the Criminal Code, these are in legal competition with computer fraud. Often this occurs in connection with other property crimes.

Like fraud, computer fraud has an exclusive relationship with theft, so both offenses are mutually exclusive. Computer fraud is subsidiary to fraud. So if both offenses are committed, the perpetrator will only be punished for committed fraud. If in one case it is unclear whether the perpetrator committed fraud or computer fraud, election determination is possible for these two offenses . Also Postpendenz is concerned, if a perpetrator certainly committed a computer fraud and possibly a scam.

Unity of offense comes in particular with the related offenses of forgery of technical records ( § 268 StGB), forgery of evidence-relevant data ( § 269 StGB), data change ( § 303a StGB), forgery of payment cards, checks and bills of exchange ( § 152a StGB ) or counterfeiting payment cards with a guarantee function ( Section 152b StGB).

If the holder of a check or credit card commits computer fraud with his card and thereby damages its issuer, the offense of abuse of check and credit cards ( Section 266b StGB) takes precedence over Section 263a StGB and supersedes it. Tax evasion , which is punishable under Section 370 of the Tax Code , which can also be committed through acts of computer fraud , also has priority .

criminology

Computer fraud cases recorded from 1987-2017.

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . The entire federal territory has been covered since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Older statistics only cover the old federal states. Cases of fraud involving debit cards and access authorization to communication services are not recorded .

In 2015, 23,562 cases of computer fraud were recorded. Compared to the previous year, in which 22,308 cases were registered, this is a slight increase. Around 33.1% of the cases were cleared up, a slight increase compared to 2014. Computer fraud accounted for around 7.2% of computer and internet crime. Computer fraud cases are predominantly located in small and medium-sized property crime.

The recording of fraud offenses was reorganized for the 2016 statistics. A new key has been created for computer fraud, which includes cases that fell under the more general key of fraudulent crime in previous years. Therefore, the figures from 2016 onwards can only be compared to a limited extent with those of previous years.

Police crime statistics for computer fraud in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Proportion of attempted acts

(absolute / relative)

Clearance rate
1987 2,777 5 218 (7.9%) 41.1%
1988 3,075 5 333 (10.8%) 40.3%
1989 1,242 2 124 (10.0%) 47.2%
1990 787 1 116 (14.7%) 63.7%
1991 1,035 2 99 (9.9%) 55.8%
1992 2,485 3 150 (7.5%) 51.7%
1993 1,755 3 177 (7.9%) 50.5%
1994 2,754 3 216 (7.8%) 51.8%
1995 3,575 4th 361 (10.1%) 52.6%
1996 3,588 4th 413 (11.5%) 55.2%
1997 6,506 8th 539 (8.3%) 57.5%
1998 6,465 8th 469 (7.3%) 60.7%
1999 4,474 6th 467 (10.4%) 54.9%
2000 6,600 8th 442 (6.7%) 67.0%
2001 17,310 21st 605 (3.5%) 77.9%
2002 9,531 12 828 (8.7%) 57.0%
2003 11,388 14th 934 (8.2%) 43.2%
2004 14,186 17th 1,679 (11.8%) 46.4%
2005 15,875 19th 2,584 (16.3%) 48.7%
2006 16,211 20th 2,216 (13.7%) 48.9%
2007 16,274 21st 2,723 (16.7%) 37.2%
2008 17.006 28 2,584 (15.2%) 37.1%
2009 22,963 33 2,989 (13%) 34.8%
2010 27,292 33 3,882 (14.2%) 30.2%
2011 26,723 30th 4,237 (15.9%) 27.0%
2012 24,817 28 4,728 (19.1%) 30.1%
2013 23,242 29 4,869 (20.9%) 31.1%
2014 22.308 28 3,797 (17, 0%) 30.9%
2015 23,562 29 3,528 (15.0%) 33.1%
2016 84.060 102.3 13,851 (16.5%) 38.8%
2017 86,372 104.7 13,415 (15.5%) 40.5%

Legal situation in other states

A regulation similar to § 263a StGB can be found in Swiss criminal law with Art. 147 StGB . This makes fraudulent misuse of a data processing system a criminal offense. The act and success of this fact essentially coincide with the German norm.

In the Liechtenstein and Austrian Criminal Code, § 148a standardizes the offense of fraudulent data processing abuse, which also shows great parallels to the German § 263a StGB.

literature

  • Karsten Altenhain: § 263a . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Gunnar Duttge: § 263a . In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 263a .
  • Martin Heger: § 263a . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Eric Hilgendorf, Brian Valerius: Computer and Internet Criminal Law: A Floor Plan . 2nd Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-16885-7 .
  • Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  • Walter Perron: Section 263a . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Klaus Tiedemann: Economic fraud: special facts in capital investments and business loans, subsidies, transport and property insurance, IT and telecommunications. De Gruyter, Berlin 1999, ISBN 978-3-11-090689-9 , § 263a.
  • Klaus Tiedemann, Brian Valerius: § 263a . In: Klaus Tiedemann, Bernd Schünemann, Manfred Möhrenschlager (eds.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 , sub-volume 1: §§ 263 to 266b. de Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-89949-786-1 .
  • Wolfgang Wohlers, Tilo Mühlbauer: § 263a . In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Hrsg.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Klaus Tiedemann, Brian Valerius: § 263a , Rn. 9. In: Klaus Tiedemann, Bernd Schünemann, Manfred Möhrenschlager (eds.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 , sub-volume 1: §§ 263 to 266b. de Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-89949-786-1 .
  2. ↑ a b c BGHSt 40, 331 .
  3. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 2. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  4. ↑ a b c Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 393 .
  5. ↑ Roland Hefendehl, Wolfgang Wohlers, Tilo Mühlbauer: § 263a . In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Hrsg.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code: StGB Volume 5: §§ 263–358 StGB . 2014, p. 307 .
  6. ↑ Wolfgang Wohlers, Tilo Mühlbauer: § 263a , Rn. 1. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  7. ↑ BT-Drs. 10/318 , p. 18.
  8. ^ Klaus Tiedemann: Economic fraud: special facts with capital investments and business loans, subsidies, transport and property insurance, IT and telecommunications. De Gruyter, Berlin 1999, ISBN 978-3-11-090689-9 , § 263a, Rn. 2.
  9. ↑ a b BGHSt 38, 120 .
  10. ^ Klaus Tiedemann: Economic fraud: special facts with capital investments and business loans, subsidies, transport and property insurance, IT and telecommunications . Verlag Walter de Gruyter, 1999, § 263a, p. 6 .
  11. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf, Brian Valerius: Computer and Internet criminal law: A floor plan . 2nd Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-16885-7 , p. 157 .
  12. ↑ Federal Law Gazette Part I 2003 No. 65, p. 2839.
  13. ↑ BT-Drs. 10/318 , p. 21.
  14. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  15. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 263a, Rn. 3.
  16. ↑ a b Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 3. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  17. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 12. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  18. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 5. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  19. ↑ a b c d Manfred Möhrenschlager: Das neue Computerstrafrecht , in: Journal for Economic and Tax Criminal Law 1986, p. 128 (132-133).
  20. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 263a, Rn. 6th
  21. ↑ BT-Drs. 10/318 , p. 20.
  22. ↑ a b Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 13. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  23. ↑ Harro Otto: Examinatorium: Problems of Computer Fraud . In: Jura 1993, p. 612 (613).
  24. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 6. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  25. ↑ Eric Hilgendorf, Brian Valerius: Computer and Internet criminal law: A floor plan . 2nd Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-642-16885-7 , p. 149 .
  26. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 9. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  27. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 263a , Rn. 11. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  28. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 17. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  29. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 263a , Rn. 8. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  30. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 8. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  31. ↑ Gunnar Duttge: § 263a , Rn. 9. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  32. ↑ a b Walter Perron: § 263a , Rn. 6. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  33. ↑ Michael Heghmanns: Comment on BGH, decision of 22 January 2013, 1 StR 416/12 . In: Journal for Legal Studies 2013, p. 423.
  34. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 18. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  35. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 10. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  36. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 395 .
  37. ↑ BT-Drs. 10/5058 , p. 30.
  38. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 11. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  39. ↑ Walter Perron: § 263a , Rn. 7. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  40. ↑ Klaus Tiedemann, Brian Valerius: § 263a , Rn. 40. In: Klaus Tiedemann, Bernd Schünemann, Manfred Möhrenschlager (eds.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 , sub-volume 1: §§ 263 to 266b. de Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-89949-786-1 .
  41. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 28, marginal no. 20th
  42. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 398 .
  43. ↑ Harro Otto: Basic Course in Criminal Law . 7th edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 2005, ISBN 3-89949-228-5 , § 52, Rn. 40.
  44. ^ Friedrich-Christian Schroeder, Manfred Maiwald, Reinhart Maurach: criminal law, special part. Teilbd. 1. Offenses against personal and property rights . 10th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2009, ISBN 978-3-8114-9613-2 , § 41, Rn. 233.
  45. ↑ OLG Celle, judgment of April 11, 1989, 1 Ss 287/88 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1989, p. 367 (367-368).
  46. ↑ Hans Achenbach: The "little coin" of the so-called computer criminal law . In: Jura 1991, p. 225 (227).
  47. ^ Frank Arloth: Computer criminal law and empty games from slot machines . In: Jura 1996, p. 354 (357-358).
  48. ↑ a b BGHSt 47, 160 (163).
  49. ^ BGH, judgment of March 31, 2004, 1 StR 482/03 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2005, p. 213.
  50. ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of July 9, 1991, Ss 624/90 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1992, p. 125.
  51. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 28, marginal no. 47.
  52. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 28, marginal no. 48-49.
  53. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 14b. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  54. ↑ BGH, judgment of December 20, 2012, 4 StR 580/11 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2013, p. 1017.
  55. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 399 .
  56. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 28, marginal no. 26th
  57. ^ BGH, judgment of May 13, 2003, 3 StR 128/03 = criminal defense lawyer 2004, p. 21.
  58. ↑ LG Würzburg, judgment of July 29, 1999, 5 KLs 153 Js 1019/98 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2000, p. 374.
  59. ↑ Bernd Hecker: Note on Kammergericht 161 Ss 216/13 . In: Legal Training 2015, p. 756.
  60. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 28, marginal no. 30th
  61. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 401 .
  62. ↑ Wolfgang Wohlers, Tilo Mühlbauer: § 263a , Rn. 66. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  63. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 263a, Rn. 22nd
  64. ^ Alfred Dierlamm: § 266 , Rn. 212. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  65. ^ Walter Perron: § 263a . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder (Hrsg.): Penal Code Commentary . CH Beck Verlag, 2014, p. 2562 .
  66. ^ AG Tiergarten, judgment of April 18, 1986, 264 Ds 84/85 = New Journal for Criminal Law 1987, p. 126.
  67. ↑ OLG Celle, judgment of May 6, 1996, 3 Ss 21/96 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 1518.
  68. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of July 29, 1999, 5 Ss 291/98 - 71/98 I = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, p. 158.
  69. ^ Theodor Lenckner, Wolfgang Winkelbauer: Computer crime - possibilities and limits of the 2nd WiKG (II) . In: Computer und Recht 1986, p. 654 (659-660).
  70. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  71. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 27, marginal no. 81.
  72. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 263a, Rn. 26th
  73. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 26b. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  74. ↑ Stephan Husemann: The improvement of the criminal law protection of cashless payment transactions through the 35th Criminal Law Amendment Act . In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift, p. 104 (108).
  75. ↑ Walter Perron: § 263a , Rn. 33a. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  76. ^ Jörg Eisele: Payment Card Crime: Skimming . In: Computer und Recht 2011, p. 130 (134).
  77. ↑ Marco Gercke: The criminal liability of phishing and identity theft . In: Computer und Recht, 2005, p. 606 (608).
  78. ↑ Walter Perron: § 263a , Rn. 36. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  79. ↑ Walter Perron: § 263a , Rn. 48. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  80. ↑ Klaus Tiedemann, Brian Valerius: § 263a , Rn. 78. In: Klaus Tiedemann, Bernd Schünemann, Manfred Möhrenschlager (eds.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 , sub-volume 1: §§ 263 to 266b. de Gruyter, Berlin 2012, ISBN 978-3-89949-786-1 .
  81. ↑ Kristian Kühl: § 78a , Rn. 2. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  82. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 64. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  83. ↑ Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 27. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  84. ↑ BGH, judgment of February 12, 2008, 4 StR 623/07 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2008, p. 1394.
  85. ↑ BGH, judgment of July 18, 2007, 2 StR 69/07 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2008, p. 396.
  86. ↑ a b Martin Heger: § 263a , Rn. 29. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  87. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: § 263a , Rn. 49. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  88. ↑ a b PKS time series 1987 to 2017. (CSV) (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, May 8, 2018, archived from the original on July 14, 2018 ; accessed on October 10, 2018 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bka.de
  89. ↑ Police crime statistics. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, archived from the original on April 23, 2018 ; accessed on April 30, 2018 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.bka.de
  90. ↑ Police crime statistics 2015. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, p. 279 , accessed on April 30, 2018 .
  91. ↑ Police crime statistics 2015. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, p. 15 , accessed on April 30, 2018 .
  92. ↑ Wolfgang Wohlers, Tilo Mühlbauer: § 263a , Rn. 6. In: Wolfgang Joecks, Klaus Miebach (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 5 : §§ 263–358 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  93. ↑ Police crime statistics 2016. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, p. 4 , accessed on April 30, 2018 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on March 10, 2016 .