Extortionate kidnapping

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Extortionate kidnapping is an offense under German criminal law . It is one of the offenses against personal freedom and is standardized in Section 239a of Section 239a of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB) . The standard contains two facts: the act of kidnapping and usurpation and the act of exploitation. The former makes kidnapping and taking possession of a person for the purpose of extortion ( § 253 StGB) a criminal offense. The latter deals with the exploitation of an existing predicament of a person for blackmail.

The offense was introduced in 1936 in order to provide acts with a particularly high threat of punishment in which someone brings a person into his power in order to blackmail a third party. In 1989 the legislature gave up this cut to three-person relationships. Since then, the person who is in the hands of the perpetrator can be identical to the person who has been blackmailed. This change in the law led to numerous difficulties in delimiting the offenses of Section 239a of the Criminal Code and other offenses, such as extortion by predators ( Section 255 of the Criminal Code).

A prison sentence of between five and fifteen years can be imposed for extortionate kidnapping . According to police crime statistics , 54 cases of Section 239a StGB were reported in Germany in 2016 . Compared to other offenses, the offense is reported very rarely. The clear-up rate is over 80 percent compared to other categories of offenses to above-average level.

Normalization

The crime of extortionate kidnapping since it was last changed on April 1, 1998, has been as follows:

(1) Anyone who kidnaps a person or seizes a person in order to exploit the victim's concern for his or her well-being or the concern of a third party for the victim's well-being to extortion (Section 253), or whoever has created the victim by such an act Who exploits a person's position to extort such a thing is punishable by imprisonment for no less than five years.

(2) In less serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment for no less than one year.

(3) If the perpetrator causes the death of the victim, at least recklessly, the penalty shall be life imprisonment or imprisonment not less than ten years.

(4) The court can mitigate the punishment under Section 49 (1) if the perpetrator allows the victim to return to his or her circle of life while renouncing the performance sought. If this success occurs without any action on the part of the perpetrator, his serious effort is sufficient to achieve success.

Due to the minimum penalty of five years is the offense in accordance with § 12 of the Criminal Code, a crime . Therefore, who is trying indeed to § 23 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code offense.

Section 239a of the Criminal Code protects several legal interests : Primarily, personal freedom and the life of the victim are protected. In addition, the norm aims to protect the freedom of third parties whose concern for the victim is to be exploited through blackmail. The norm provides secondary protection for the assets of the blackmailed.

History of origin

On June 22, 1936, the National Socialists added the paragraph to the criminal code as an extortionate kidnapping. The reason for this was the kidnapping of a child in imitation of the Lindbergh case. According to Section 239a of the Criminal Code in the version at that time , anyone who kidnapped a minor by means of cunning, threats or violence or deprived him of his liberty in any other way in order to use this to blackmail another person was punished with death .

After the establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany , the criminal offense was revised by the third Criminal Law Amendment Act with effect from August 4, 1953. The legislature wanted to keep the facts of the case because it did not contain any specifically National Socialist ideas, but rather provided a new form of crime with a special threat of punishment. Therefore, he adapted the standard to the requirements of the Basic Law (GG). For this purpose, the death penalty abolished by Art. 102 GG was replaced by a minimum penalty of three years imprisonment. Furthermore, the specific means of cunning, violence and threats were deleted. The intention to extortion was replaced by the intention to demand a ransom.

On December 16, 1971, as a result of a number of high-profile kidnapping cases, the scope of protection of the standard was extended to include adults. In the course of this, the legislature replaced the form of deprivation of liberty by taking control in order to avoid possible gaps in criminal liability. Furthermore, the legislature reformulated the necessary motivation of the perpetrator as the intention to blackmail a third party with his concern for the well-being of the victim. A possibility to mitigate punishment and a qualification for success , which provided for a higher threat of punishment for particularly serious cases, were also introduced. In addition, the legislature created the offense of hostage-taking with Section 239b of the Criminal Code . This was based on Section 239a of the Criminal Code and also recorded predicaments that were not used for blackmail but for other coercive purposes. With effect from January 1, 1975, Section 239a of the Criminal Code was headed extortionate kidnapping.

A major change in Section 239a of the Criminal Code followed on June 16, 1989. On the one hand, the legislature increased the minimum sentence to five years, on the other hand, it expanded the scope of the standard: While the version that was valid up to that point required at least two victims, a hostage and a blackmailer , the new version made a two-person relationship sufficient. The hostage and the blackmailed could be identical. The aim of the legislature was to combat the typical manifestations of violent terrorist crime at the time. However, this change resulted in the often criticized overlap between the facts of Section 239a and other norms, in particular with predatory extortion ( Section 255 StGB). In this way, for example, cases that were typically subject to extortion could also meet the criteria of extortionate kidnapping with its significantly higher penalty. This is perceived as unsuccessful in law.

The last change to the norm was made under the Sixth Criminal Law Reform Act of 1998, which slightly changed the wording of the norm. However, the overlap issue raised by the 1989 reform has not been addressed.

Objective fact

Section 239a (1) of the Criminal Code contains two offenses that are equivalent in terms of punishment. The first consists of two alternative courses of action: kidnapping and taking control of another person for the purpose of extortion. The second offense criminalizes the exploitation of a helpless situation of a person to commit extortion. This variant is designed as a catch-all offense compared to the first alternative offense.

Abduction and empowerment offense, § 239a Paragraph 1 Alternative 1 StGB

A kidnapping occurs when the perpetrator places the victim in a helpless position by changing location. Such a helpless situation represents a situation in which the victim is exposed to the influence of the perpetrator. The perpetrator can effect the change of location through cunning, threats or violence. It must take place against the will of the victim, which is why the offense is not fulfilled if the victim acts voluntarily . Therefore, Section 239a of the Criminal Code will not be implemented if the perpetrator and the victim only fake kidnapping in order to financially harm a third party by pretending to be kidnapping. In this case, however, criminal liability for fraud against the third party comes into consideration ( Section 263 of the Criminal Code).

Empowering oneself is to be understood as the justification of new or the abuse of existing violence against the victim. An example of the former is threatening someone with a weapon. According to jurisprudence, such domination can also be justified by the use of an apparently real firearm or a dummy bomb, if the victim sees his freedom of action restricted in the same way by this threat. In jurisprudence, this view is partially criticized to the extent that it neglects the normative purpose of Section 239a of the Criminal Code: Since the potential dangers associated with a position of empowerment are a reason for the extraordinarily high threat of punishment, there must be at least an abstract danger for the victim in the act. This is not the case if the position of empowerment is created merely through the appearance of a dangerous means.

Empowerment also requires the perpetrator to act against the will of the victim. If this agrees with the creation of the authority of the perpetrator, this therefore leads to the exclusion of the offense. However, the victim's consent to the act is irrelevant if this is forced through coercion ( Section 240 StGB) or an emergency. This happens, for example, if someone gives himself up to the perpetrator in exchange for another hostage.

Both variants cover actions that are committed in advance of extortion. Not required, therefore, is that the perpetrator an extortion attempt . Because the criminal charge lies in the fact that the perpetrator to commit extortion puts the hostage in considerable danger.

The act of kidnapping and empowerment is completed when the perpetrator has brought the victim into his power. This is the case as soon as the perpetrator has created a reasonably stable predicament from which the victim cannot easily free himself or herself with the help of third parties.

Act of exploitation, § 239a Paragraph 1 Alternative 2 StGB

The exploitation is relevant if the perpetrator does not bring about the dangerous situation in which the victim is brought or does not intend to blackmail. This can happen, for example, if the perpetrator only makes the decision to commit extortion after he has brought the victim into his power. Unlike the first offense, the exploitation offense requires that blackmail at least be attempted.

Subjective fact

Intent with regard to the objective fact

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for dangerous bodily harm requires that the perpetrator act with at least 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.

Intent to extortion

General

In addition, criminal liability for extortionate kidnapping requires that the perpetrator acts with the intention of exploiting the victim's concern for his or her welfare or the concern of a third party for the victim's welfare to blackmail. This additional requirement of intent represents an excessive internal tendency . In the case of criminal liability under the abduction and empowerment offense, the intention to blackmail must already exist when the offense is committed. In the case of exploitation, it can also be caught later, but blackmail must also be attempted for this.

Since Section 239a of the Criminal Code speaks of the intent to commit extortion, it is controversial whether the intention to commit robbery ( Section 249 of the Criminal Code) is sufficient to fulfill the offense. This dispute is based on the question of the relationship between the facts of robbery and extortion. According to a view shared by the Federal Court of Justice , robbery is a special case of extortion, which is why the reference in Section 239a of the Criminal Code also includes theft. The opposite view sees both facts as independent of each other, so that the intention to carry out a robbery is not sufficient for the applicability of § 239a StGB. Relevant is then § 239b StGB, which is identical in the penalty framework .

Restrictions in two-person relationships

In two-person relationships, the offense is interpreted restrictively in jurisprudence and science in order to cope with the difficulty of the overlap of § 239a StGB with other offenses: According to the wording of § 239a StGB, since the inclusion of the two-person relationships, every deprivation of liberty is in This overlap occurs, for example, when the perpetrator pulls his victim into a dark corner in order to force him to hand over cash at gunpoint. Originally, these were typical cases of robbery blackmail, for which the law provided for a minimum imprisonment of one year. Since the legislature extended Section 239a of the Criminal Code to such cases, the minimum imprisonment for these cases was increased to five years. This did not fit into the coordinated system of penalties and narrowed the scope of the offense of predatory extortion in a way that many legal scholars judge as factually wrong.

Efforts to resolve the overlap between predatory extortion and extortionate kidnapping led to the introduction of additional criteria under judicial law in Section 239a of the Criminal Code , following several different approaches in the case law :

On the one hand, it is required that the perpetrator divides his act into several acts, since § 239a StGB was originally tailored to such multi-act constellations. The perpetrator must therefore create a coercion situation in the first step in order to exploit this in a later second step for further coercion. Both acts must be linked to one another in such a way that creating the coercive situation is a prerequisite for subsequent blackmail. The case law describes this requirement as a functional connection. This is lacking, for example, when the perpetrator seizes the victim in order to force them to raise money for him and then to hand it over to him. In this case, the money should be handed over at a time when the victim is no longer in the control of the perpetrator. Therefore there is no functional connection between empowerment and blackmail.

On the other hand, empowerment and blackmail must be separate acts. This is lacking when both empowerment and blackmail are based on the same coercion. This filters out empowerments from the offense of § 239a StGB that are only of short duration. This is the case, for example, when someone uses a weapon to force someone to surrender cash.

Privilege and qualification

Less serious case, § 239a Paragraph 2 StGB

Section 239a (2) of the Criminal Code standardizes the less severe case of extortionate kidnapping. Such is the case if the wrong done by the perpetrator is comparatively minor. This can be the case, for example, if the perpetrator acts out of desperation or assumes that he is entitled to the extorted service. The assumption of a less serious case can also be considered if the perpetrator puts the victim at low risk, for example because he only uses a dummy weapon in the act or only holds the victim under his control for a short time. If the court accepts a less serious case, the minimum penalty is reduced to one year imprisonment. However, the less serious case can also be punished with a maximum of 15 years imprisonment.

Extortionate kidnapping resulting in death, Section 239a Paragraph 3 StGB

Section 239a (3) StGB defines a qualification for success . This is fulfilled when the perpetrator brings about the death of the victim through extortionate kidnapping. This offense has a minimum penalty of ten years, which is one of the highest in the StGB. This is due to the particularly high risk to the victim.

The qualification for success presupposes that the death of the victim is a direct consequence of the danger posed by extortionate kidnapping. This applies, for example, to risky attempts by the victim to escape, poor accommodation or unsuccessful rescue operations by the police. On the other hand, there is no such crime-specific risk if the police shoot the victim because they do not consider him or her to be a hostage, but rather to be a casual perpetrator of a bank robbery . The fact of qualifying as successful ultimately requires that the perpetrator caused the victim's death in a frivolous manner, i.e. as a result of particular negligence ( Section 18 of the Criminal Code).

In particularly serious cases, which are characterized by the perpetrator's great carelessness or cruelty, life imprisonment can also be ordered.

Litigation and sentencing

With the release of the victim according begins § 78a of the Criminal Code, the limitation period . The limitation period of Section 239a Paragraph 1 StGB is twenty years due to its scope of punishment under Section 78 Paragraph 3 StGB. The qualification for success in Section 239a (3) StGB becomes statute-barred after thirty years due to the higher threat of punishment.

Section 239a of the Criminal Code is an official offense. The prosecuting authorities investigate ex officio as soon as they become aware of extortionate kidnapping and are notboundby a criminal complaint .

Due to the fact that the offense is scarce and objective, it can be completed within a short period of time, which is why the perpetrator has little room to withdraw from the attempt . Section 239a (4) sentence 1 of the Criminal Code, however, gives the perpetrator the opportunity to reduce the threat of punishment if he shows repentance after the offense has been completed. This provision is intended to give the perpetrator an incentive to release his hostage unharmed. In order to benefit from this reduction in punishment, the perpetrator must allow the victim to return to his or her circle of life, i.e. free him from his predicament so that he can freely determine his whereabouts again. If this does not happen because the victim is returning to his or her circle of life without any action on the part of the perpetrator, Section 239a (4) sentence 2 StGB suffices if the perpetrator has made serious efforts beforehand to enable the victim to return. In addition, the perpetrator must refrain from blackmail. Therefore, the possibility of mitigating punishment opened up by Section 239a (4) sentence 1 of the Criminal Code is excluded if the perpetrator releases the victim but continues to insist on performance by the person to be blackmailed. If he has already received benefits from the blackmailed person, he must give them back to them. If both conditions are met, the court can mitigate the offender's sentence in accordance with Section 49 (1) StGB . According to Section 49, Paragraph 1, Number 3 of the Criminal Code, this reduces the minimum sentence to two years.

The court may, after § 239c StGB leadership supervision order. This is a measure of reform and security that can be ordered in addition to the imprisonment if it is to be feared that the perpetrator will become criminal again in the future.

Law competitions

If further crimes are committed in connection with an act under Section 239a of the Criminal Code, these are in legal competition with extortionate kidnapping. This often occurs in connection with other crimes against freedom.

Section 239a of the Criminal Code replacesthe deprivation of liberty as a more specific law ( Section 239 of the Criminal Code). Unity of offense comes between extortionate kidnapping and assault and homicide as well as extortion. In relation to hostage-taking ( Section 239b of the Criminal Code), a unit of offense comes into consideration if the perpetrator pursued other coercive purposes in addition to extortion. Otherwise, hostage-taking takes a back seat to extortionate kidnapping as a more general law. The successful qualification of Section 239a (3) StGB supersedes negligent homicide ( Section 222 StGB).

criminology

Recorded cases of extortionate kidnapping from 1987–2016.

The Federal Criminal Police Office annually publishes statistics on all criminal offenses reported in Germany, the police crime statistics . This has covered the entire federal territory since 1993. The statistics from 1991 and 1992 included the old federal states and all of Berlin. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

In 2016, 54 cases of extortionate kidnapping were recorded. This is a decrease from the previous year when 68 cases were recorded. Overall, extortionate kidnapping is rare compared to other crimes; the acts according to § 239a StGB account for just over 0% of all reported acts. The restrictive interpretation of the offense by the judiciary is seen as one of the reasons for the low numerical significance of Section 239a of the Criminal Code. Legal scholars therefore suspect that the actual implementation of the constituent elements of Section 239a StGB could be given far more frequently. The clearance rate of 85.0% in 2017 was above average compared to other offenses. Often the act is committed jointly.

Police crime statistics for extortionate kidnapping in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded With a gun
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Proportion of attempted acts

(absolute / relative)

Shot Threatened Clearance rate
1987 66 0.1 18 (27.3%) 3 37 69.7%
1988 50 0.1 13 (26.0%) 3 20th 74.0%
1989 54 0.1 10 (18.5%) 4th 26th 74.1%
1990 50 0.1 21 (42.0%) 1 16 76.0%
1991 53 0.1 13 (24.5%) 2 15th 92.5%
1992 80 0.1 26 (32.5%) 1 29 73.8%
1993 107 0.1 34 (31.8%) 2 29 64.5%
1994 106 0.1 30 (28.3%) 3 23 75.5%
1995 112 0.1 19 (17.0%) 4th 33 92.0%
1996 126 0.2 25 (19.8%) 4th 35 86.5%
1997 133 0.2 32 (24.1%) 5 39 78.2%
1998 149 0.2 29 (19.5%) 4th 43 84.6%
1999 103 0.1 20 (19.4%) 1 26th 82.5%
2000 90 0.1 18 (20.0%) 1 21st 83.3%
2001 90 0.1 14 (15.6%) 2 24 83.3%
2002 88 0.1 15 (17.0%) 2 25th 79.5%
2003 102 0.1 27 (26.5%) 2 18th 83.3%
2004 94 0.1 18 (19.1%) 1 18th 85.1%
2005 95 0.1 20 (21.1%) 0 20th 89.5%
2006 90 0.1 22 (24.4%) 0 27 77.8%
2007 73 0.1 18 (24.7%) 0 12 79.5%
2008 71 0.1 12 (16.9%) 1 21st 85.9%
2009 89 0.1 26 (29.2%) 3 23 84.3%
2010 81 0.1 15 (18.5%) 2 15th 92.6%
2011 85 0.1 20 (23.5%) 0 15th 82.4%
2012 82 0.1 15 (18.3%) 0 12 74.4%
2013 85 0.1 17 (20.0%) 2 17th 80.0%
2014 88 0.1 21 (23.9%) 1 15th 88.6%
2015 68 0.1 20 (29.4%) 2 12 86.8%
2016 54 0.1 19 (35.2%) 0 10 92.6%
2017 80 0.1 18 (22.5%) 4th 11 85.0%

Related facts: hostage-taking, § 239b StGB

(1) Anyone who abducts a person or seizes a person in order to act, tolerate or omit to act, tolerate or omit him or a third party by threatening death or serious bodily harm (Section 226) of the victim or by depriving him of liberty for more than a week to coerce, or whoever exploits the situation of a person created by such an act to such coercion, is punished with imprisonment not less than five years.

(2) Section 239a Paragraphs 2 to 4 apply accordingly

The hostage-taking has been regulated in Section 239b of the Criminal Code since 1971. The structure of the offense largely corresponds to that of extortionate kidnapping.

Hostage-taking differs from extortionate kidnapping in that the perpetrator's intent can extend to any form of coercion. The norm is therefore protected by the freedom of choice of those who are required. Instead of taking advantage of concerns about the well-being of the victim, there is a threat of causing death or serious bodily harm ( Section 226 of the Criminal Code) or imprisonment for more than a week.

Otherwise, the facts of hostage-taking and extortionate kidnapping are the same. This is why there is also the problem of the hostage-taking by extending it to two-person relationships with offenses, for which the law threatens a significantly lower penalty. Therefore, Section 239b of the Criminal Code and Section 239a of the Criminal Code are interpreted restrictively in these cases.

Legal situation in other states

In the criminal law of Austria , § 102 StGB makes extortionate kidnapping a punishable offense. According to this, anyone who kidnaps another against his will or seizes him in order to coerce a third party is punished with a prison sentence of between ten and twenty years.

The Swiss criminal law regulates the taking of hostages in Art. 185 StGB . According to this, anyone who deprives another of his freedom, kidnaps or empowers him in order to coerce a third party is punished with three years in prison. Both legal systems, unlike the German, do not differentiate between general coercion and extortion as an intended act. In addition, the Austrian and Swiss norms are limited to three-person relationships.

literature

  • Marko Brambach: Problems of the crime of extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking . Berlin 2000, ISBN 3-428-09936-2 .
  • Albin Eser, Jörg Eisele: § 239a . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Martin Heger: § 239a . In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a.
  • Markus Immel: The endangerment of life and limb through hostage taking (§§ 239a, 239b StGB) . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2001, ISBN 978-3-428-50488-6 .
  • Sonja Christine Nikolaus: On the facts of extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8305-0536-1 .
  • Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a . In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  • Markus Rheinländer: Extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking (§§ 239a, 239b StGB): a structural analysis . LIT Verlag, Münster 2000, ISBN 978-3-8258-4545-2 .
  • Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  • Brian Valerius: § 239a . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Wilhelm Schluckebier: § 239a , Rn. 1. In: Hans Kudlich (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 7 , Part 2: Sections 232 to 241a. De Gruyter, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-11-037497-1 .
  2. ↑ Martin Heger: § 239a , Rn. 1. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  3. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 1. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  4. ↑ Helmut Satzger: Extortionate kidnapping (§ 239a StGB) and hostage-taking (§ 239b StGB) in a two-person relationship , in: Jura 2007, p. 114 (115).
  5. ↑ Reichsgesetzblatt I p. 493.
  6. ↑ a b Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 9. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  7. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 11. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  8. ↑ Markus Immel: The endangerment of life and limb through hostage taking (§§ 239a, 239b StGB) . Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2001, ISBN 978-3-428-50488-6 , pp. 30-32 .
  9. ↑ a b c d Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 672 .
  10. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 13-15. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  11. ↑ BT-Drs. 11/4359 , p. 13.
  12. ↑ BGHSt 39, 36 (41-42).
  13. ↑ Markus Rheinländer: Extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking (§§ 239a, 239b StGB): a structural analysis . LIT Verlag, Münster 2000, ISBN 978-3-8258-4545-2 , p. 8 .
  14. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 8. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  15. ↑ BGHSt 39, 330 (332).
  16. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a, Rn. 4th
  17. ↑ BGHSt 24, 90 .
  18. ↑ BGHSt 22, 178 .
  19. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 675 .
  20. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a, Rn. 4d.
  21. ↑ BGHSt 26, 70 (72).
  22. ↑ Albin Eser, Jörg Eisele: § 239a , 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 .
  23. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of June 9, 1999, 3 StR 78/99 = New Journal for Criminal Law 1999, p. 509.
  24. ^ BGH, judgment of September 19, 2001, 2 StR 240/01 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2001, p. 31.
  25. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a, Rn. 4c.
  26. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 37. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  27. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 23, 2006, 3 StR 366/06 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report, 2007, p. 77.
  28. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 16, marginal no. 11.
  29. ↑ Markus Rheinländer: Extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking (§§ 239a, 239b StGB): a structural analysis . LIT Verlag, Münster 2000, ISBN 978-3-8258-4545-2 , p. 62-63 .
  30. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 39. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  31. ↑ a b BGHSt 40, 350 (359).
  32. ↑ BGH, judgment of August 31, 2006, 3 StR 246/06 = criminal defense lawyer, 2007, p. 355 (356).
  33. ^ BGH, judgment of February 2, 2012, 3 StR 385/11 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift Spezial, 2012, p. 250.
  34. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  35. ↑ Martin Heger: § 239a , Rn. 4. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  36. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 16, marginal no. 14th
  37. ^ BGH, judgment of 19 September 2001, 2 StR 240/01 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2001, p. 31 (32).
  38. ^ BGH, judgment of March 5, 2003, 2 StR 494/02 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2003, p. 604.
  39. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 28. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  40. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 43. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  41. ↑ BGHSt 39, 36 (41-42).
  42. ↑ Bernd Heinrich: On the necessity of limiting the status of hostage-taking . In: New Journal for Criminal Law 1997, p. 365.
  43. ↑ Manfred Heinrich, Uwe Hellmann, Volker Krey: Criminal Law Special Part: Volume 2: Property offenses . 17th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2015, ISBN 978-3-17-029876-7 , Rn. 485.
  44. ↑ BGHSt 39, 36 .
  45. ^ BGH, judgment of March 2, 1994, 5 StR 494/93 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1994, p. 128.
  46. ^ BGH, judgment of November 28, 1995, 4 StR 641/95 = New Journal for Criminal Law 1996, p. 277.
  47. ↑ BGH, judgment of April 5, 2016, 3 StR 550/15.
  48. ↑ Martin Heger: § 239a , Rn. 4a. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  49. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part I: Offenses against personal rights, the state and society . 6th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2014, ISBN 978-3-8487-0290-9 , § 16, marginal no. 35.
  50. ↑ a b BGH, judgment of April 7, 2009, 4 StR 601/08 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisdiction Report 2009, p. 231.
  51. ^ Brian Valerius: § 239a , Rn. 18. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  52. ↑ BGH, judgment of 23 August 1994, 1 StR 389/94.
  53. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 35. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  54. ↑ a b Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 24. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  55. ↑ a b BGHSt 33, 322 (324-325).
  56. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 17, Rn. 44.
  57. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a, Rn. 18a.
  58. ↑ 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 .
  59. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 102. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  60. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 36. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  61. ^ BGH, judgment of May 21, 2003, 1 StR 152/03 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2003, p. 605.
  62. ^ BGH, judgment of May 31, 2001, 1 StR 182/01 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, p. 2895.
  63. ↑ Albin Eser, Jörg Eisele: § 239a , Rn. 41. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  64. ^ BGH, judgment of September 7, 2016, 1 StR 293/16 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2017, p. 1124.
  65. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 96. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  66. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239a, Rn. 21-21a.
  67. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 34. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  68. ↑ a b c d 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
  69. ↑ Police crime statistics. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, archived from the original on April 23, 2018 ; accessed on October 3, 2017 . 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
  70. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 13. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  71. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239a , Rn. 9. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  72. ↑ Bernd-Rüdeger Sonnen: § 239a , Rn. 14. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  73. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 239b, Rn. 2.
  74. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239b , Rn. 2-3. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  75. ↑ Joachim Renzikowski: § 239b , Rn. 22-23. In: Günther Sander (Ed.): Munich Commentary on the Criminal Code . 2nd Edition. tape 4 : §§ 185–262 StGB. CH Beck, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-406-60290-0 .
  76. ^ A b Sonja Christine Nikolaus: On the facts of extortionate kidnapping and hostage-taking. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin 2003, ISBN 3-8305-0536-1 , pp. 32-33 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on June 1, 2017 .