Abuse of check and credit cards

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The abuse of check and credit cards is a criminal offense under German criminal law . It is one of the property offenses and is standardized in Section 266b of the Criminal Code in Section 266b of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB), which contains fraud and infidelity offenses .

The standard aims to protect the assets of the issuer of check and credit cards. It prohibits the holder of a payment card from effectively obliging the issuer to make a payment to a third party by using the card contrary to his contractual instructions. This applies, for example, if the credit line granted is exceeded.

Section 266b of the Criminal Code was added to the Criminal Code in 1986 as a crime largely based on infidelity ( Section 266 of the Criminal Code). The legislature responded to a criminal liability loophole in the fraudulent use of payment cards, which was not regularly punishable as fraud ( § 263 StGB) or as breach of trust.

Normalization

The offense standardized in Section 266b of the Criminal Code has been as follows since its introduction:

(1) Anyone who abuses the option given to him by providing a check card or credit card to induce the issuer to make a payment and thereby damages him will be punished with imprisonment for up to three years or with a fine.

(2) Section 248a applies accordingly.

Because of the standard range of penalties of up to three years' imprisonment or a fine, the offense according to Section 12 (2) StGB is a misdemeanor . In the absence of an explicit order, the attempt under Section 266b StGB is therefore not punishable.

With this fact, the legislature aimed to protect the assets of issuers of check and credit cards. Individual legal scholars also see the functionality of cashless payment transactions protected by the standard.

History of origin

Section 266b of the Criminal Code was added to the Criminal Code on August 1, 1986 by the second law to combat economic crime. With this fact, the legislature reacted to the controversial question of how the gradually increasing use of check and credit cards should be located in the system of property criminal law. The behavior that was regarded as worthy of sanction in this context lay in the use of a check or credit card by its holder as a means of payment contrary to a ban on the part of its issuer. Such a ban occurred, for example, when the account of the owner of a credit card was no longer covered. With the help of the card, however, it was possible for its holder, despite the lack of coverage, due to the legal framework relationship between the card issuer and the cardholder's creditor, to legally bind the former to the latter.

It was discussed in jurisprudence whether such abusive behavior on the part of the cardholder could be assessed as fraud or breach of trust, or whether a new criminal law was required. For fraud, there was usually no act of deception required by the offense , while a conviction for breach of trust failed due to the fact that the cardholder was obliged to look after the assets of the issuer. Although the Federal Court of Justice affirmed the criminal liability for fraud in the case of the misuse of a check card, this was mostly viewed critically in jurisprudence: In addition to deception, the assumption of fraud requires that someone is subject to an error , i.e. a misconception about facts. The court assumed that the error was a misconception about the coverage of the check issued. However, since the card issuer was obliged to make a payment through the use of the check card, the creditor did not have to worry about the coverage of the check, so that he could not be subject to any misconception.

The court shared this assessment in a later decision with regard to the improper use of a credit card, since the creditor of the monetary claim could not care about the solvency of the cardholder due to a payment obligation on the part of the card issuer, but it adhered to its earlier case law on the check card as the coverage of the Checks are important to the creditor. The opposing view, however, saw no relevant difference in either case to justify this unequal treatment, so that criminal liability for fraud or breach of trust must be ruled out in both cases. The legislature decided to create a new offense to close the potential criminal liability loophole.

The newly created offense of Section 266b of the Criminal Code was largely modeled on embezzlement, since card misuse is an injustice comparable to embezzlement: the perpetrator uses the opportunity to oblige the card issuer to make payments to third parties on the basis of an authorization granted by him , although this obligation in the relationship between the cardholder and the card issuer is contrary to the contract. This corresponds to the abuse of the authority to commit, the act of infidelity. Section 266b of the Criminal Code, however, dispenses with the unfaithful feature of the duty to look after assets, which is why a conviction of the perpetrator for embezzlement regularly failed.

In the legislative phase, the criminal policy justification of the norm was partly disputed, since it only dealt with the violation of a contractual obligation. However, criminal law does not have the function of sanctioning breaches of contractual obligations. The card issuers are able to defend themselves in an effective way against such a situation. Criticism of the standard, which has not changed since its introduction, is also expressed to the effect that the framework conditions for cashless payment transactions have changed considerably since the standard was introduced, so that the standard needs to be modernized.

Objective fact

Objects of crime

Section 266b of the Criminal Code names check and credit cards as the objects of the crime. What both cards have in common is their function as a means of payment : they enable the holder to induce the card issuer to make a payment to a third party in response to a claim against the holder.

Check card

Legal relationship with a Eurocheque guarantee
Eurocheque procedure

When the criminal offense was introduced, the term credit card referred to Eurocheque cards . The subject of the Eurocheque system was a guarantee contract that was concluded between the check taker and the card issuer as soon as the check issuer wrote a check or used his check card. On the basis of this guarantee contract, the card issuer promised the check taker to redeem checks issued to him by one of their customers up to a contractually specified maximum amount. The check-taker was given an additional debtor, which reduced the risk that the check issued to him was not covered.

Due to the decreasing importance of checks and the increasing use of debit cards , the Eurocheque procedure was discontinued on December 31, 2001.

Electronic cash method

The importance of the Eurocheque system was taken over by the electronic cash procedure (also referred to as the point-of-sale procedure). There is a contract between the card issuer and the payee, by virtue of which the latter undertakes to participate in the ec procedure. A payment service contract exists between the holder and the card issuer ( Section 675f BGB). If the cardholder uses his card as a means of payment for the company participating in the ec procedure, he issues a payment instruction to the card issuer. This checks the card for authenticity, the absence of blocks, the PIN and compliance with the credit limit. If this check is positive for the customer, the card issuer pays the company participating in the procedure the amount owed.

In jurisprudence, it is controversial whether the cards used in this process can also be subsumed under the term check card. This is mostly disputed because such cards do not have a check card function: Instead of a guarantee, there is an abstract promise of debt by the card issuer to the payee. By entering the PIN at the payee's checkout, the payment request is forwarded to the card issuer, who can, but does not have to, authorize the payment. The issuer's obligation to pay is therefore not based on the action of the cardholder. For this reason, the subsumption of EC cards under the term check card exceeds the wording of Section 266b StGB. The objection is made that the purpose of the standard is to record all cards with which the perpetrator can oblige the issuer to pay.

Code cards

The importance of check cards with a code card function, which are used, for example, to withdraw cash from an ATM, is also controversial. According to one opinion, this does not fall under the offense of Section 266b of the Criminal Code, since the card only serves as an access key, while its guarantee function, which the standard is linked to, is not used.

Other legal scholars affirm the fact that the offender takes the money from a third party ATM, as this is the three-person relationship required for card misuse: By using the card, the card issuer is obliged to reimburse the machine owner for the value of the payout. If, on the other hand, the perpetrator uses the card at one of the issuer's machines, there is no reason to pay to a third party, so that card misuse is ruled out.

Credit cards

Legal relationships with a credit card in the three-person system

A credit card serves as a cashless means of payment. When the legislature created the offense, payment by credit card was traditionally carried out within a three-person relationship: the issuer of the credit card undertook to meet the customer's payment obligations as soon as the customer made use of the card. In addition, he made an abstract promise of debt to companies that participate in the credit card system, under which he undertook to settle the company's claims against their customers immediately. For this, he withheld a small portion of the amount claimed from the entrepreneur as a fee . Then, often at monthly intervals, he settled accounts with his customer, the cardholder.

Legal relationships with a credit card in the four-person system

This three-person procedure is now only practiced to a limited extent, for example by the companies American Express and Diners Club , which only have a market share of around 10% in Germany. The market leaders Visa and Mastercard added additional participants to this three-person system: the credit card company no longer carries out the task of issuing the cards itself, but instead grants others, such as banks, the right to issue cards under a license agreement. In addition, the credit card company entrusts banks (so-called acquirers ) to recruit contractual partners who accept the credit card. Therefore, when the card is used by its holder, it is not the credit card company but the acquirer that is obligated. The acquirer then settles the accounts with the card issuer, who in turn settles with his customer, the cardholder.

According to the prevailing opinion, no credit cards in the sense of the standard are customer cards that are only used in a two-person relationship. These allow the holder to purchase goods from the card issuer on credit. In this case, however, there is no reason for the exhibitor to make a payment as required by the facts. In such a relationship, however, a criminal liability for fraud ( Section 263 StGB) comes into consideration if the issuer grants the cardholder credit because the cardholder is deceiving him about his solvency. The opposite view, which also regards customer cards as suitable objects of crime, refers in particular to the higher threat of fraud, which is not appropriate due to the comparable injustice of card misuse in two- and three-person relationships. A mediating view assigns customer cards to fraud because of the clear wording of Section 266b of the Criminal Code, but only wants to punish the offender within the scope of Section 266b of the Criminal Code. The same applies to fuel cards that allow cashless payment at gas stations.

If a card functions both as a customer card in a two-person relationship and as a credit card in a three-person relationship, the offense of card misuse is relevant if the offender uses the card in a three-person relationship. Otherwise, a criminal liability for fraud is possible.

Perpetrator

The offense can only be realized by the person to whom the issuer of the offense has given the opportunity to oblige him to pay. Only the authorized card holder can be considered for this. Uses a person's object of the crime against the will of its owner, as after their discovery or theft , the offenses of fraud and are computer fraud ( § 263a of the Criminal Code) is relevant. The transfer of the card to third parties is typically excluded by the contractual terms of the leading payment service providers, so that anyone who uses the card with the consent of the cardholder is not a suitable perpetrator. Due to this limited group of perpetrators, § 266b StGB is a special offense . Persons who are not cardholders can therefore not commit a criminal offense as a perpetrator, but only as a participant ( instigator and assistant ).

Offense

A constituent act of § 266b StGB is the abuse of the possibility to oblige the card issuer to make a payment. The perpetrator acts improperly if he uses the legal power granted to him by the transfer of the payment card to oblige the card issuer to pay a third party, but in doing so exceeds his specifications. In this respect, the offense under Section 266b of the Criminal Code corresponds to abuse in the case of a breach of trust. The basis of the internal relationship between the card issuer and the card holder is the legal relationship on which the card is provided. This can, for example, contain compliance with a certain credit limit as a specification. If the perpetrator exceeds this limit by continuing to use the credit card, he will misuse it: as a result, he establishes payment obligations on the part of the card issuer without the conditions agreed internally - the coverage of the credit line - being present.

Such an excess can only take place if the perpetrator effectively obliges the card issuer. This is missing, for example, if the payee breaches his contractual obligations towards the card issuer. This is the case, for example, when the former accepts payment by card even though he knows that this has caused the cardholder to exceed his credit limit. If both simulate an obligation to pay the card issuer in order to enrich themselves with the amount paid out by the card issuer, even joint fraud is possible.

Successful act

The abuse must have led to financial loss. The concept of financial loss corresponds to that of fraud : the victim must suffer a financial loss that is not compensated for by an equivalent compensation. This is the case, for example, if the victim is obliged to pay and receives a de facto worthless claim for compensation against the perpetrator with no assets. Compensation for damages, on the other hand, exists if the perpetrator violates a restriction imposed by the card issuer, but can and wants to compensate for this. The damage also does not apply if the injured party can keep himself harmless by making a compensation payment from the perpetrator's employer or by realizing a security .

As in the case of fraud and breach of trust, the prevailing view is that a damage-equivalent financial risk is sufficient to assume a financial disadvantage. This figure is used if no financial disadvantage has yet occurred, but the risk of such is so great that it burdens the owner of the property in a manner comparable to the actual occurrence of a disadvantage.

Subjective fact

The criminal liability according to § 266b StGB requires at least a conditional intent on the part of the offender. He must therefore at least recognize and, as a result of his actions, approve of the fact that he can cause a financial disadvantage through his abusive or improper conduct. This is missing, for example, if he erroneously assumes that his actions are still covered by the requirements of the card issuer, or if he seriously believes that he can meet his obligation to compensate the card issuer.

Litigation and sentencing

The act is prosecuted ex officio as an official offense. Due to the reference in Section 266b (2) of the Criminal Code to Section 248a of the Criminal Code, the offense exceptionally requires a criminal complaint by the injured party if the damage caused by the offense is minor. A minor damage is usually accepted up to the amount of 50 €.

Law competitions

According to the prevailing opinion, Section 266b of the Criminal Code is a more specific law that suppresses fraud and breach of trust, provided that the damage is based on abuse. If this is the case, the abuse cannot be assessed as attempted fraud or attempted infidelity, as otherwise the impunity of the attempt under Section 266b of the Criminal Code would be circumvented. Obtains the offender the card through a deception, for example, about his financial situation, and uses them then despite the lack of their own ability to compensate for payment transactions takes the law because of the close interlocking of fraud and abuse coincidence between the two offenses on. This is viewed as absurd due to the temporal separation of the two offenses by critical voices: If the offender is already planning abuse when the card is fraudulently obtained, Section 266b is a co-punished night offense of fraud, otherwise there would be a majority between the two offenses.

criminology

Recorded cases of card fraud in the years 1987–2017.

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.

The number of reported cases rose almost steadily from 1987 to 2005. Since then it has been falling sharply. In 2015, however, there was a slight increase from 1,787 reported cases to 1,949. Compared with the related offenses of infidelity (2017: 6,041) and computer fraud (2017: 86,372), the number of reported cases is significantly smaller, which means that Section 266b of the Criminal Code is of little importance in the crime statistics. On the other hand, fraud using illegally obtained credit cards occurs more frequently (2015: 8,505). At 85–95%, the clearance rate is at a similarly high level as for infidelity (2017: 97.6%) but significantly higher than for fraud using illegally obtained credit cards (2015: 33.8%). The number of female suspects is above average (2016: 40.7%).

Police crime statistics for the abuse of check and credit cards in the Federal Republic of Germany
Cases recorded
year All in all Per 100,000 inhabitants Clearance rate
1987 592 1.0 86.7%
1988 426 0.7 91.8%
1989 663 1.1 94.3%
1990 778 1.2 94.0%
1991 687 1.1 94.3%
1992 891 1.4 94.3%
1993 1.002 1.2 89.3%
1994 1,322 1.6 97.7%
1995 1,546 1.9 91.7%
1996 1,757 2.1 91.9%
1997 1,777 2.2 86.5%
1998 1,609 2.0 94.6%
1999 2,370 2.9 93.9%
2000 4,306 5.2 95.7%
2001 4,744 5.8 93.1%
2002 4,706 5.7 94.1%
2003 8,063 9.8 94.9%
2004 8,785 10.6 96.7%
2005 9,808 11.9 97.0%
2006 6.252 7.6 95.4%
2007 4.263 5.2 96.3%
2008 3,787 4.6 93.0%
2009 3,934 4.8 90.2%
2010 3,977 4.9 91.5%
2011 2,651 3.2 86.1%
2012 2,460 3.0 84.3%
2013 2.167 2.7 83.5%
2014 1,787 2.2 85.7%
2015 1,949 2.4 85.0%
2016 1,920 2.3 82.1%
2017 1,380 1.7 81.9%

Legal situation in other states

In England's criminal law , the courts initially saw deception in the use of a credit card in breach of contract, so they assessed such acts as fraud: the cardholder tacitly asserted by using the card as a means of payment that he was entitled to do so. As in Germany, this line of argument met with a lot of criticism, so that the legislature reformulated the facts of fraud through the Fraud Act of 2006 and replaced the act of deception by providing false information.

After the Swiss courts rejected the application of fraud to the abuse of payment cards, the legislature created Article 148 of the Criminal Code, a regulation that is similar to the German offense. However, it requires that the card issuer and the contracting company have taken measures to prevent such abuse.

The Austrian case law applies the infidelity offense of § 153 StGB, which has a lot in common with the abuse alternative of the German infidelity offense, to the abuse of payment cards.

literature

  • Thomas Fischer : Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b.
  • Martin Heger: § 266b. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Urs Kindhäuser: § 266b. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  • Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. 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 .
  • Walter Perron: § 266b. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Henning Radtke: § 266b. 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 .
  • Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property Offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 .
  • Petra Wittig: § 266b. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 30th edition. 2016.

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 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 .
  2. ↑ a b c BT-Drs. 10/5058 , p. 32.
  3. ↑ Martin Heger: § 266b. Marg. 1. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  4. ↑ Otto Lagodny: Criminal law before the barriers of basic rights . Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1996, ISBN 978-3-16-146602-1 , p. 298-299 .
  5. ^ Günther Kaiser: Criminology: a textbook . CF Müller Verlag, Karlsruhe 1996, ISBN 978-3-8114-6096-6 , p. 858 .
  6. ↑ a b Urs Kindhäuser: § 266b. Marg. 2. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  7. ↑ BGHSt 24, 386 (386-387).
  8. ↑ a b BGHSt 33, 244 (244–245).
  9. ↑ a b c Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 2. 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 .
  10. ↑ BGHSt 24, 386 .
  11. ↑ a b Petra Wittig: § 266b. Marg. 1. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 30th edition 2016.
  12. ^ A b Thomas Fischer : Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 3.
  13. ↑ Hans Achenbach: The second law to combat economic crime. In: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1986, p. 1835 (1838).
  14. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 3. 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 .
  15. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Section 266b. Marg. 5. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  16. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 8. 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 .
  17. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Section 266b. Marg. 6. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  18. ↑ Uwe Hellmann, Catherine Beckemper: white collar crime . 4th edition. Kohlhammer Verlag, Stuttgart 2013, ISBN 978-3-17-024351-4 , Rn. 219.
  19. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 10. 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 .
  20. ↑ Thomas Fischer : Penal Code with ancillary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 6a-6b.
  21. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 19, Rn. 2.
  22. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 266b. Marg. 10. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 30th edition 2016.
  23. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 11. 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 .
  24. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 36, marginal no. 5.
  25. ↑ Simon Fest: Examination-relevant basics of banking law in the special part of the StGB. In: Legal Training. 2009, p. 798 (802).
  26. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 482 .
  27. ↑ BGHSt 47, 160 (164-165).
  28. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Section 266b. Marg. 21. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  29. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 61. 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 .
  30. ↑ Hans Kudlich: Computer fraud and check card abuse by the authorized cardholder - BGH, NJW 2002, NJW 2002, 905. In: Juristische Schulung. 2003, p. 537 (540).
  31. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Section 266b. Marg. 7. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  32. ^ A b Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property Offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 19, Rn. 9.
  33. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part I: Property offenses . 18th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68816-4 , § 19, Rn. 14th
  34. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 22. 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 .
  35. ↑ BGHSt 38, 281 (281–282).
  36. ↑ Thomas Fischer : Penal Code with ancillary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 10a.
  37. ↑ Simon Kempny: Overview of the money card offenses. In: Legal Training. 2007, p. 1084 (1085).
  38. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Section 266b. Marg. 8-9. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  39. ↑ OLG Celle, judgment of November 5, 2010, 1 Ws 277/10 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2011, p. 218.
  40. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 29. 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 .
  41. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 36, marginal no. 9.
  42. ↑ a b Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 4. 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 .
  43. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II. 8th edition. Nomos Verlag, 2014, p. 310.
  44. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 479 .
  45. ↑ Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. Marg. 58. 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 .
  46. ↑ BGH, judgment of December 3, 1991, 4 StR 538/91 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1992, p. 278 (279).
  47. ↑ BayOLG, judgment of April 23, 1997, 3St RR 33/97 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1997, p. 3039.
  48. ↑ Thomas Fischer : Penal Code with ancillary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 15th
  49. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 36, marginal no. 15-16.
  50. ↑ Thomas Fischer : Penal Code with ancillary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 17th
  51. ↑ BGHSt 33, 244 . 247.
  52. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 266b. Marg. 29. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 30th edition 2016.
  53. ↑ BT-Drs. 10/5058 , p. 33.
  54. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 36, marginal no. 18th
  55. ↑ Martin Heger: § 266b. Marg. 6. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  56. ^ LG Dresden, judgment of June 21, 2005, 10 Ns 202 Js 45549/03 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2006, p. 633.
  57. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 73. 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 .
  58. ↑ Thomas Fischer : Penal Code with ancillary laws . 67th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2020, ISBN 978-3-406-73879-1 , § 266b, Rn. 18th
  59. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 266b. Marg. 17. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 30th edition 2016.
  60. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  61. ↑ Martin Heger: § 266b. Marg. 7. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  62. ↑ Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. Marg. 57. 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 .
  63. ↑ Nikolaus Bosch, Albin Eser: § 248b. Marg. 10. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  64. ↑ Martin Heger: § 266b. Marg. 9. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  65. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 266b. Marg. 27. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher online commentary on the Criminal Code. 30th edition 2016.
  66. ↑ BGHSt 47, 160 (169).
  67. ↑ Henning Radtke: § 266b. Marg. 79. 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 .
  68. ↑ Martin Heger: § 266b. Marg. 9. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  69. ↑ a b c 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
  70. ↑ 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
  71. ↑ Police crime statistics 2015. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, Building and Home Affairs , p. 7 , accessed on December 16, 2016 .
  72. ↑ Police crime statistics 2016. (PDF) Federal Ministry of the Interior, for Building and Home Affairs , p. 17 , accessed on September 21, 2017 .
  73. ↑ Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. Marg. 70. 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 .
  74. ↑ Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. Marg. 71-72. 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 .
  75. ↑ Manfred Möhrenschlager: § 266b. Marg. 73. 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 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on February 1, 2017 .