Levy
Tax-sufficiency, reduction in benefits are exclusively for officials in force special offenses in the German criminal law , which by § 353 the entry of criminal liability in the Criminal Code illegal regulate sufficiency of information or the unlawful reduction of benefits to the detriment of the state, while the corresponding and consummated for the benefit of the state official act in spite of illegality, no criminal offense is fulfilled. These criminal offenses, as well as the overhaul of fees according to § 352 StGB, are assigned to the classic official offenses .
Levy
A public official who has to collect taxes, fees or other charges for a public treasury will, if he charges charges that he knows that the payer owes no or only a small amount, and the unlawfully charged in whole or in part Part does not pay, punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.
The threat of punishment here expressly does not refer to the illegal collection of taxes per se, but rather requires the fulfillment of the element of the offense in order to be effective that what is illegally collected is not or only partially brought to the (state) treasury. The unlawful collection of taxes with the fulfillment of their complete transfer to the cash register, i.e. for the benefit of the state, is unlawful against the person affected by the levy, but is not punishable by the public official.
Example of criminal liability: Public official X levies unlawful charges from citizen Y and embezzles part or all of it ( infidelity to the state is punished here ).
Example of impunity: Public official X collects illegal taxes from citizen Y and takes everything to the cash register ( here the illegality against the citizen is not punished ).
Reduction in benefits
Likewise, anyone who, as a public official, makes unlawful deductions to the recipient from official expenditures in cash or in kind and bills the expenditures as fully paid will be punished.
Similar to the overdraft of taxes, the threat of punishment relates exclusively to the fulfillment of the criteria that the public official invoices the recipient to the state as having been fully paid for the expenses unlawfully invoiced with deductions. However, anyone who, as a public official, makes unlawful deductions to the recipient from official expenditures in money or in kind and accordingly bills the state as incomplete, is also acting unlawfully, but does not qualify as a criminal offense for the unlawful act. Here, too, there is illegality without sanctions in favor of the state, since in the case of the invoice adjusted for the illegally deducted amounts, the state receives a pecuniary benefit through an official illegality.
Example of criminal liability: Public official X illegally deducts part of the state benefits from citizen Y, to whom the state owes state benefits (e.g. social benefits ), and charges the state for the full amount of the benefits ( here, too, infidelity ( Section 266 of the Criminal Code ).
Example of impunity: Public official X illegally deducts part of the state benefit from citizen Y, to whom the state owes state benefits (e.g. welfare benefits) and only invoices the state for the benefits adjusted for the unlawful reduction ( also here the illegality is not punished against the creditor ).
