Stolen goods (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In German criminal law , the offense of receiving stolen goods is regulated in Section 259 of Section 259 of the Special Part of the Criminal Code (StGB) . The offense counts as a follow-up offense : It refers to behavior that can occur following an offense described as a predicate offense.

The criminal norm of § 259 StGB aims to protect property . To this end, it prohibits several behaviors that consolidate illegal possession of a thing. The offense is linked to possessions that result from criminal offenses that are directed against third-party assets. This includes in particular theft ( § 242 StGB). Section 259 of the Criminal Code names four acts that include acting on the seller's side as well as on the buyer side: procuring, buying and selling the thing, as well as providing sales assistance. The norm has been included in the Criminal Code since it came into force and its main features have remained unchanged to this day.

A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine can be imposed for stolen goods . According to police crime statistics , 1,180 cases of stealing with vehicles and 13,434 cases of stealing with other goods were reported in Germany in 2017. The clear-up rate of receiving stolen goods is for the reported crimes with more than 95% on a higher than average level. However, a large dark field is suspected.

Normalization

The offense of stealing is standardized in Section 259 of the Criminal Code and has been as follows since it was last changed on January 1, 1975:

(1) Anyone who purchases or otherwise procures something for himself or a third party, sells it or helps to sell it in order to enrich himself or a third party in order to enrich himself or a third party, is imprisonment, which someone else has stolen or otherwise obtained through an illegal act directed against someone else's property up to five years or a fine.

(2) Sections 247 and 248a apply accordingly.

(3) The attempt is punishable.

Because of the standard range of penalties of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine, stealing is an offense under Section 12 (2) of the Criminal Code .

The standard aims to protect property . From a systematic point of view, it represents an abstract endangering offense: the acts of stolen goods are sanctioned because they pose a general danger to other people's assets. This lies in the fact that the fence maintains an unlawful state of property. In addition, the legislature wanted to prevent anyone who creates an unlawful state of assets from generating income. This is intended to deprive him of the incentive for further corresponding offenses. Because of this additional protection, the penalty for stolen goods exceeds that of some property offenses. In addition, the standard is intended to prevent the emergence of a black market.

History of origin

Stolen goods, like other follow-up offenses, were originally viewed in criminal law as a special form of aiding and abetting, which is why it was not regulated in common law as an independent criminal offense, but as a form of participation . In the 19th century, however, these forms of participation were increasingly viewed as independent offenses, so that they were upgraded to facts. This development began with receiving stolen goods, which was given its own penal standard in the Prussian penal code of 1851. Other German states followed this development. After the Empire lawmakers took a offense of receiving stolen goods into the Penal Code on which entered into force on 1 January 1872nd According to this, concealment, buying, pledging, collecting as well as helping to dispose of something that came from someone else's predicate offense were punishable by law.

On June 15, 1943, a second paragraph was added to this standard, which introduced experimental criminality. On September 1, 1969, another amendment came into force that limited the maximum sentence to five years in prison .

Section 259 was fundamentally revised as part of the Introductory Act to the Criminal Code , which came into force on January 1, 1975. In particular, the legislature aimed at a clearer demarcation from the offense of beneficiary ( § 257 StGB). For this purpose, the act of concealment was removed and other acts were reformulated. Since then, the provision of an item, the purchase, the deposition and the support with the deposition have been constitutive. The circle of predicate offenses was limited to those directed against other people's assets. A reference was added to the standards § 247 and § 248a StGB, which, under certain circumstances, require the person concerned to file a criminal complaint .

Objective fact

Object of crime

The object of stolen goods is something that comes from another person's committed crime . This act is referred to as a predicate offense, its perpetrator as an ancestor. Any unlawful criminal offense that causes an unlawful shift in assets can be considered a predicate offense. This includes in particular the property and property offenses of the StGB. In addition, other facts into consideration about coming to the prevailing opinion forgery ( § 267 of the Criminal Code) and coercion ( § 240 is the Criminal Code) Not required that the predicate offense also at fault was committed, so that it is irrelevant to the existence of handling stolen goods, whether the predecessor was not culpable or excused. The criminal prosecution of the act is also irrelevant. Therefore, an act can also be considered as a predicate offense, which cannot be prosecuted due to the statute of limitations or reasons for exclusion .

The illegal financial situation caused by the previous offense must continue at the time of the stolen goods. This is the case if the victim can either demand the matter from the perpetrator directly or, if the perpetrator has acquired ownership of the object of the crime, can contest the transfer of ownership . The assessment of illegality is based on civil law standards, such as the regulations on bona fide acquisition or legal property acquisition . For example, it is not stolen goods if someone acquires a so-called pirated copy from its owner, as this does not result in illegal possession of the data carrier.

It is necessary that fences and predecessors are different in person. The perpetrator of the predicate offense, who then uses his booty himself, does not make himself liable for stealing the booty. It is controversial in jurisprudence whether someone can steal the thing obtained from this offense, whose contribution to the predicate offense has no culprit but merely participant character. According to one opinion, participation in the predicate offense already encompasses the entire injustice of maintaining the illegal possession. Stealing was therefore also excluded from the participant in the predicate offense. The prevailing view in jurisprudence, however, affirms the criminal liability of the participant, since, unlike a perpetrator, he did not create the illegal possession himself, but only promoted the causal act. In addition, there is no provision in the case of receiving stolen goods that orders the participant in the previous offense to be exempt from punishment. However, this is the case with connection crimes and money laundering. It follows that the legislature also wanted to include the participant in the predicate offense in the case of stolen goods.

The thing is obtained from the act when it arises directly from it. Stolen goods therefore only refers to the object acquired through the predicate offense, such as the booty from a theft. Their countervalue, however, is not covered by Section 259 StGB. For this reason, for example, it is not a matter of fact if the perpetrator of the predicate offense sells his loot and gives the money thus obtained to a third party who is aware of the predicate offense. Stealing from the stolen goods is ruled out, since the perpetrator of the predicate offense cannot commit stolen goods. Stealing the money is also excluded, as the money does not originate from a crime directed against someone else's assets. Such cases do not qualify as stolen goods despite being designated as substitute stolen property.

Acts

The offense of receiving stolen goods contains four acts: procuring, buying, selling and providing sales assistance. In the first two acts, the fence acts as the purchaser of the booty or on the side of such, in the last two as the transferor or on the side of such.

As an unwritten element of the offense, all actions require that the fence cooperate with the previous owner of the thing. This prerequisite is recognized in jurisprudence, since the offense of stealing is intended to prevent the predecessor from receiving an incentive to commit further offenses against the property. Such an incentive is lacking, however, when he loses possession or ownership of the prey without having benefited from it. The precondition for cooperation is not fulfilled, for example, if the fence takes the thing away from the predecessor without his consent or if he is forced to surrender the loot. If, on the other hand, the perpetrator obtains the thing by deceiving the predecessor, stealing is possible, since the predecessor voluntarily and consciously transfers ownership of the thing to the fence, which satisfies the requirements of an amicable procedure.

A cooperation between predecessor and fence requires the actual consent of the predecessor at the time of the transfer of property. A presumed consent is not sufficient.

Procure

Procurement occurs when the perpetrator gains independent power of disposal over the prey from the predicate offense for his own economic purposes. This is the case when he can deal with the thing in a similar way to an owner, regardless of the predecessor. The granting of direct or indirect personal property by the predecessor may be sufficient for this. The decisive factor is that the fence can dispose of the crime object economically and independently. This is the case, for example, when someone takes a misappropriated item as a deposit or stolen money as a loan . If an item has been handed in as luggage, it is sufficient for the assumption that the item has been procured if the offender procures the luggage ticket.

At a sufficient possibility of disposing Hehlers however, it lacks about when these things only as a tenant , borrower or commission has since it determines the usage requirements of another case - the landlord, lender or principals - is subject. The same applies, for example, if someone uses a stolen vehicle for a joyride. It is also not sufficient if the perpetrator only takes the thing for the purpose of destruction, since this is not used for his own economic purposes. It is controversial in jurisprudence whether the consumption of the stolen object is a matter of fact. Proponents argue that consuming something in the context of theft is considered appropriation. On the other hand, it is argued that the fence does not acquire comprehensive power of his own simply by consuming the thing.

It also constitutes procuring within the meaning of Section 259 of the Criminal Code if the fence does not grant this power of disposal to himself but to a third party. This covers cases in which the perpetrator acts as a middleman, i.e. purchases the thing from the previous offender and instructs the latter to hand over the thing directly to a buyer of the stealer.

Procuring can also be committed in the form of omission . This requires a guarantor position of the neglecting person, i.e. the duty to avert the occurrence of the offense. Such is the case, for example, with a business owner who is responsible for the processes on his company premises. It therefore constitutes, for example, stolen goods by omission if the operator consciously tolerates the use of stolen tools in his company.

purchase

The purchase represents a special case of procuring, in which a purchase contract represents the legal basis of the transfer to the fence. Acquisition of ownership by the stalker is excluded in such cases, as ownership would have to be transferred as a legal transaction. However, this fails on the one hand because of the lack of authorization of the criminal seller (predecessor) and on the other hand because of the bad faith of the purchaser (fence).

paragraph

The withdrawal represents the independent exploitation of a thing in the interests of the previous offender. This is done by transferring the power of disposal over the thing to a third party. According to the prevailing view, only commercial exploitation acts in return represent a withdrawal, since the term of withdrawal is understood in common parlance as commercial action. The objection to this is that unpaid business can also maintain an illegal financial position.

It is also controversial in jurisprudence whether the act of selling requires a successful sale. The prevailing view affirms this and only assumes discontinuation if the perpetrator has succeeded in transferring control over the subject to a third party. This is supported by the trial criminality of paragraph 3, for which there would hardly be an area of ​​application, even the effort to achieve sales success is sufficient for the completion of the act. In addition, procuring oneself also requires an act of success. The Federal Court had nevertheless initially sufficient in law that the commitment to a paragraph. In doing so, he was guided by the earlier wording of Section 259 of the Criminal Code, which was valid until 1969 , and which in the old version already punished participation in the paragraph. Aid actions are sufficient for this regardless of the successful sale of the booty. The legislature did not want to change this assessment in the new version of the standard. With a ruling from 2013, the court abandoned this view and since then has also been demanding sales success.

The illegal possession of the thing must also be continued when it is removed. The sale to the person injured by the previous offense therefore does not constitute a withdrawal, because the repurchase expires the illegal possession of the thing. This also expires if the customer is an undercover investigator or a confidante of the police.

Marketing aid

This modality of action punishes actions that promote another sales act. The mediation of potential buyers and the promotion of the sales process are exemplary. It is also a sales aid if someone violates the obligation to prevent third parties from selling them. Such an obligation applies, for example, to a landlord in whose shop regular stolen goods are carried out.

This type of offense therefore includes acts that typically constitute aid within the meaning of Section 27 of the Criminal Code. Aid to receiving stolen goods is excluded, however, if the person who is assisted in weaning is the predecessor, since according to the wording of the standard, he cannot commit stolen goods. The offense modality of sales assistance serves to close this possible criminal liability gap.

Here, too, it is necessary that this withdrawal is successful, i.e. that another person is given power of disposal over the matter. When distinguishing between sales aid and aid to steal acquisition, the organization of the stolen business is decisive: If the helper is involved in the organization of the sales person, he provides sales aid. If, on the other hand, he is on the side of the purchaser, he provides this aid to procure.

Subjective fact

Intent

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for stolen goods requires that the perpetrator acts 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. It is therefore particularly necessary that the perpetrator knows that the object of the crime stems from an unlawful act directed against someone else's property. This knowledge must be available at the time of the act of stolen goods. If the purchaser only learns about the criminal origin of the thing later, there is no stolen goods; However, criminal liability for embezzlement is possible ( Section 246 of the Criminal Code). He must also want to act in agreement with the predecessor.

In the case of a misconception, an intentional error of fact ( § 16 StGB) comes into consideration, for example with the assumption that the predicate offense is not a criminal offense, but an administrative offense . For intent regarding the illegality of the predicate offense, it is sufficient if the fence recognizes the circumstances that justify the illegality of the predicate offense.

Intention to enrich

In addition, the perpetrator must act with the intention of unlawful enrichment. This is the case if he strives for either himself or a third party to receive a financial advantage through the act. Such an endeavor exists, for example, if the seller of the stolen goods receives payment for this. If, on the other hand, the perpetrator acquires the thing at customary market conditions, the pursuit of enrichment is lacking despite knowledge of the illegal origin of the goods. If the object of the crime is a good that cannot be legally traded, such as narcotics , the usual black market price is used to determine the intention to enrich.

In contrast to other facts that require the intention of enrichment, such as fraud , stealing does not require the same substance or illegality of the pecuniary advantage sought. Substance equality exists when the desired financial advantage is based directly on the damage suffered by the victim. However, the protective purpose of stolen goods is already affected by the fact that the perpetrator strives for an advantage that is detached from the damage suffered by the owner of the goods, such as a reward. The same applies to illegality.

attempt

The attempt of receiving stolen goods is punishable. It is true that § 259 paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code only a misdemeanor is, then the offense is not that the experiment of § 23 paragraph 1 variant results 1 SCC. Section 259 (3) of the Criminal Code, however, expressly orders criminal offenses against attempts.

In this context, the form of action of sales assistance presents difficulties. Since the weaning is done by someone else, the time at which the stalker begins to try is when he starts the supporting action. However, jurisprudence and jurisprudence consider this to be too extensive, as there is no punishable risk. Such a thing only arises when the person selling starts his sales activity. Therefore, attempted sales assistance is only possible from this point on.

Litigation and sentencing

The act is prosecuted ex officio as an official offense. Section 259, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code refers to the rules governing criminal charges for theft. An application is therefore required if it concerns an act among members of a family ( Section 247 of the Criminal Code) or the object of the crime is of low value ( Section 248a of the Criminal Code). In some cases, it is requested that the mandatory mitigation of punishment provided for in Section 27 of the Criminal Code for assistants be applied analogously to the fence who makes himself liable to prosecution for sales assistance. The objection is that this contradicts the legal system. Although the sales aid is based on the aid, the legislature designed it as an independent act with criminal quality.

According to Section 78 Paragraph 3 Number 4 StGB, the act expires within five years.

Law competitions

If the perpetrator sells several items as part of a stolen property, there is only stolen goods. Because of its formal subsidiarity, embezzlement often takes a back seat to receiving stolen goods. Unity of offense is possible in particular with the other follow-up offenses.

When seizing and securing stolen property, there is often the practical problem of proving whether the person from whom the loot was found was involved in the act or was aware of the fact that the thing was obtained. In this respect, either a property crime, such as theft or stolen goods, could be present. In such cases, the principle of election determination is applied: In the case of offenses with comparable penalties, the offender is convicted of one of the two offenses. Since the punishments for theft and stolen goods are equivalent, it is possible to determine the election of these offenses. The same applies to embezzlement, fraud and multiple acts of stolen goods.

Qualifications

The StGB contains three qualifications of stolen goods, which are divided into two norms. There is a tier relationship between these norms such that Section 260a StGB represents a tightening of Section 260 StGB.

Commercial stolen goods; Gang stealing

Section 260 of the Criminal Code qualifies the commercial and gang-like inspection of stolen goods. The offender acts on a commercial basis if he intends to obtain a source of income of considerable weight by repeatedly committing stolen goods. The first stolen goods can already be commercial, provided the perpetrator plans to inspect others. A gang is an association of at least three people who have banded together for the continued commission of stolen goods. In contrast to the facts of gang theft ( § 244 StGB) or robbery ( § 250 StGB), it is not necessaryin the case of gang stealing that at least two gang members participate in an act of stolen goods. It is sufficient if a perpetrator acts as a fence, provided that this is done in agreement with the other gang members.

The qualification is punished with a penalty of six months to ten years. Both qualification features represent special personal features within the meaning of Section 28 Paragraph 2 StGB, which affects the punishment of participants.

Section 260 (3) of the Criminal Code refers to Section 73d of the Criminal Code, which regulates the possibility of extended forfeiture. This allows a court to confiscate the perpetrator's objects. In contrast to simple forfeiture, extended forfeiture is not limited to items that stem from the offense that has been sentenced, but also extends to other illegal acts.

Commercial gang stealing

This qualification, regulated in Section 260a of the Criminal Code, was introduced in 1992 as part of the 18th Act to Combat Organized Crime . Your offense is fulfilled if an offender fulfills both qualification criteria of Section 260 StGB. , This fact has for its minimum penalty framework, which is one year imprisonment crimes character .

criminology

Recorded cases of simple and qualified stealing of vehicles in the years 1987–2017.
Recorded cases of simple and qualified stealing 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.

The absolute number of stolen goods fell between 1987 and 2017, even if there is no clear trend in the development of the frequency.

Thefts make up the majority of predicate offenses. Legal scholars rate the dark field of stolen goods as large, since it is extremely difficult for investigative authorities to distinguish sales transactions from legal transactions.

Motor vehicles are a frequent object of stolen goods. Therefore, these are recorded separately in the crime statistics. There was a large increase in these in the mid-1990s. Since then, the number of offenses has declined, with the exception of increases between 2000 and 2006 and between 2010 and 2012.

Police crime statistics for simple and qualified stealing in the Federal Republic of Germany (excluding stealing of vehicles)
Cases recorded
year all in all per 100,000 inhabitants tries Clearance rate
1987 23,633 39 392 (1.7%) 99.5%
1988 22,310 36 398 (1.8%) 99.2%
1989 18,285 30th 338 (1.8%) 99.1%
1990 17,041 27 359 (2.1%) 99%
1991 19,140 29 356 (1.9%) 98.3%
1992 22,432 34 400 (1.8%) 99.5%
1993 19,709 24 407 (2.1%) 99.5%
1994 17,596 22nd 394 (2.2%) 99.7%
1995 19,548 24 468 (2.4%) 99.2%
1996 21,326 26th 502 (2.4%) 99.7%
1997 20,612 25th 479 (2.3%) 99.1%
1998 21,992 27 663 (3%) 98.9%
1999 21.003 26th 549 (2.6%) 98.2%
2000 20,995 26th 542 (2.6%) 98.1%
2001 20,738 25th 461 (2.2%) 97.9%
2002 20,416 25th 481 (2.4%) 97.8%
2003 20,111 24 416 (2.1%) 97.7%
2004 20,235 25th 396 (2%) 98.1%
2005 20,340 25th 425 (2.1%) 97.9%
2006 19,256 23 366 (1.9%) 97.4%
2007 16,809 20th 364 (2.2%) 97.2%
2008 17,293 21st 535 (3.1%) 97.3%
2009 15,935 19th 543 (3.4%) 96.8%
2010 14,869 18th 433 (2.9%) 96.7%
2011 14,667 18th 524 (3.6%) 96.8%
2012 15,539 19th 456 (2.9%) 96.7%
2013 17,711 22nd 508 (2.9%) 96.7%
2014 17,655 22nd 641 (3.6%) 96%
2015 16,177 20th 509 (3.1%) 95.7%
2016 15,645 19th 531 (3.4%) 95.5%
2017 13,434 16.3 443 (3.3%) 96.2%

Related facts

Negligent stealing of precious metals and stones

Section 148b of the Trade Regulations standardizes the offense of negligent commercial stealing of precious metals . Suitable objects of crime are selected precious metals: gold , silver , platinum and platinummetals( palladium , rhodium , ruthenium , iridium and osmium ). The acts of crime correspond to those of stolen goods under Section 259 of the Criminal Code. In contrast to this offense, neither the offender's intent nor intent to gain enrichment are necessary; instead, in Section 148b GewO, carelessness with regard to the criminal origin of the crimeis sufficient. Thus, there are special duties of care for the commercial buyer of precious metals when trading or processing the goods.

Tax stealing

Tax stealing is standardized in Section 374 of the Tax Code. The objective fact is fulfilled by anyone who procures, buys, sells or helps sell objects for which consumption taxes or import and export duties have been evaded. Also suitable objects of crime are goods or products that are subject to an import or export ban ( ban break ), provided the perpetrator trades with them on a commercial basis or in a gang. This fact is often relevant in the case of trafficking in smuggled cigarettes .

Data stealing

The offense of data theft came into force on December 18, 2015 as Section 202d StGB. The purpose of this standard is to protect the confidentiality of data by making actions that continue unlawful data storage a punishable offense. With regard to the acts of crime, the legislature applied the terms of stolen goods: procuring, surrendering, disseminating or making accessible data that is not publicly available is punishable. Some believe that this data must originate from an unlawful predicate offense that is directed against the authority to dispose of data, for example spying on data ( Section 202a of the Criminal Code). According to the prevailing opinion, however, any unlawful predicate offense is sufficient, for example, including embezzlement, since the term of the unlawful act is defined accordingly in Section 11 No. 5 StGB.

The offense was already heavily criticized during the legislative process, as it was seen as a danger to journalism in connection with data from whistleblowers. In jurisprudence, the regulation is referred to as “failed” and “excessive and misplaced”. In December 2016, the Berlin lawyer Ulrich Kerner filed a constitutional complaint against Section 202d of the Criminal Code, as the offense considerably restricts the freedom of lawyers who deal professionally with information from whistleblowers.

Legal situation in other states

In Switzerland , stealing is regulated in Article 160 of the Criminal Code. This fact is fulfilled by anyone who acquires, has given, pledged, concealed or sold something that he knows or must assume to have originated from an act directed against someone else's property. In Austria , receiving stolen goods under Section 164 of the Criminal Code is liable to prosecution if someone takes possession of an item that is the result of a punishable act against someone else's property, provides it to a third party or supports the perpetrator in keeping it secret or exploiting it. The act of concealment differs from the German legal situation in particular: in Austria and Switzerland, acts of stolen goods are subject to acts of stolen goods that support the predecessor in maintaining his own possession of the object of the crime. In Germany, this behavior falls within the scope of favoritism ( § 257 StGB) and money laundering ( § 261 StGB).

In English and Welsh criminal law , the offense is referred to as handling stolen goods . The scope of this fact is limited to objects that result from theft . In Spain, a comparable offense is regulated in Article 298 of the Código Penal de España . It differs from the German fact that such action is already a fact that serves to secure the advantage for the perpetrator.

literature

  • Karsten Altenhain: § 259 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  • Frank Dietmeier: § 259 . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 259 .
  • Matthias Jahn: § 259 . In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  • Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Stefan Maier: § 259 . 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 .
  • Christian Neumann: Reform of the criminal offenses. Favoring, thwarting punishment and receiving stolen goods (§§ 257 ff. StGB). Discussion of reform and legislation since 1870 . Monsenstein and Vannerdat, Münster 2007, ISBN 978-3-86582-441-7 .
  • Felix Ruhmannseder: § 259 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  • Walter Stree, Bernd Hecker: § 259 . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Tonio Walter: § 259. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  • Britta Wolff: Favoring, thwarting punishment and stolen goods: historical development and differentiation from aid . Lang, Frankfurt am Main 2002, ISBN 3-631-38019-4 .

Web links

Wiktionary: Receiving stolen goods  - explanations of meanings, word origins, synonyms, translations
 Wikinews: Receiving stolen goods  - in the news

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c Karsten Altenhain: § 259 , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  2. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259 , Rn. 3. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  3. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259 , Rn. 2. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 . Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 2. 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. ↑ BGHSt 7, 134 (137). BGHSt 10, 151 (152).
  5. ↑ BGHSt 7, 134 (142). BGHSt 42, 196 (199).
  6. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 4. 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 .
  7. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 47, marginal no. 1.
  8. ↑ Matthias Jahn, Dana Reichart: Die Anschlussdelikte - Favored (§ 257 StGB) . In: Juristische Schulung 2009, p. 309 (309-310). Tonio Walter: § 259 , Rn. 1. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  9. ↑ Alexander Elster: Superstition - criminal biology . Ed .: Rudolf Sieverts. 2nd Edition. De Gruyter, Berlin 1967, ISBN 3-11-089016-X , p. 374 .
  10. ↑ a b Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 14. 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. 7/550 , p. 252.
  12. ^ BGH, judgment of June 29, 1994, 2 StR 160/94 = New Journal for Criminal Law. 1994, p. 486.
  13. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 8. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  14. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 10. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  15. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 780 .
  16. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 24. 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 .
  17. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 259, Rn. 4. Karsten Altenhain: § 259, marginal no. 20. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  18. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 40-44. 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 .
  19. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 44. 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 . Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg: § 202d , Rn. 11.1. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  20. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 4. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (eds.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  21. ↑ Kurt Seelmann: Basic cases of receiving stolen goods (§ 259 StGB) . In: Juristische Schulung 1988, p. 42.
  22. ↑ BGHSt 7, 134 (134-136). BGHSt 33, 50 (52).
  23. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 259, Rn. 31.
  24. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 65. 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 .
  25. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, 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 .
  26. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 47, marginal no. 6th
  27. ↑ BGHSt 42, 196 (197).
  28. ↑ Walter Stree, Bernd Hecker: § 259 , Rn. 37. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 . Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 , § 259, Rn. 10.
  29. ^ Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 , § 259, Rn. 10. Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 47, marginal no. 19th
  30. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, 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 .
  31. ^ BGH, judgment of December 7, 1954, 2 StR 471/54 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1955, p. 351.
  32. ^ BGH, judgment of July 5, 1995, 3 StR 167/95 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1995, p. 544. BGH, judgment of December 22, 1987, 1 StR 423/87 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1988, p. 3108.
  33. ↑ BGHSt 27, 160 (163).
  34. ↑ BGHSt 27, 45 (46). BGHSt 35, 172 (175).
  35. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 85. 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 .
  36. ^ BGH, judgment of May 22, 1958, 4 StR 96/58 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1958, p. 1244.
  37. ↑ BGHSt 27, 160 .
  38. ↑ BGH, judgment of July 20, 2004, 3 StR 231/04 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2005, p. 373.
  39. ↑ BGH, judgment of August 5, 1986, 4 StR 359/86 = criminal defense lawyer 1987, p. 197.
  40. ^ BGH, judgment of July 5, 1995, 3 StR 167/95 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 1995, p. 544.
  41. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 32. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  42. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 2, marginal no. 99. Karsten Altenhain: § 259, marginal no. 33. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  43. ^ BGH, judgment of April 17, 1952, 3 StR 77/52 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1952, p. 754.
  44. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Thomas Hillenkamp: Criminal Law Special Part 2: Offenses against assets . 38th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4036-4 , Rn. 852
  45. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , 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 .
  46. ↑ Walter Stree, Bernd Hecker: § 259 , Rn. 23. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 . Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 259, Rn. 14th
  47. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 126. 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 .
  48. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259 , Rn. 46. ​​In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  49. ^ BGH, judgment of 29 July 1976, 4 StR 312/76 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1976, p. 1950.
  50. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 259, Rn. 16. Tonio Walter: § 259 , Rn. 51. In: Heinrich Wilhelm Laufhütte, Joachim Vogel (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 8 : §§ 242 to 262.De Gruyter, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-89949-785-4 .
  51. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 50. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  52. ↑ a b BGHSt 43, 110 (111).
  53. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 47, marginal no. 26th
  54. ↑ BGHSt 43, 110 .
  55. ↑ BGHSt 27, 45 (48). BGHSt 43, 110 (111).
  56. ↑ BGH, judgment of October 22, 2013, 3 StR 69/13 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2013, p. 584.
  57. ↑ Jan Dehne-Niemann: What does the change in case law by the BGH on “sales success” mean for sales assistance? In: HRR criminal law. Strate and Ventzke, February 2015, accessed August 22, 2016 .
  58. ^ Harro Otto: Receiving stolen goods, § 259 StGB . In: Legal Education 1985, p. 153.
  59. ↑ RGSt 58, 299 (300).
  60. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 53. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  61. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 54. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  62. ↑ BGHSt 33, 44 (48).
  63. ↑ Kristian Kühl: Criminal Law General Part . 7th edition. Vahlen, Munich 2012, ISBN 978-3-8006-4494-0 , § 5, Rn. 43.
  64. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 134. 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 .
  65. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 133. 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. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 60. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  67. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 64. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  68. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 143. 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 .
  69. ^ BGH, judgment of February 19, 1982, 3 StR 39/82 = criminal defense lawyer 1982, p. 256.
  70. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 137. 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 .
  71. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 69. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  72. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 150. 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 .
  73. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 75. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  74. ↑ Urs Kindhäuser: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against property rights . 9th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2016, ISBN 978-3-8487-2578-6 , § 47, marginal no. 34.
  75. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 80. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  76. ^ Matthias Jahn: § 259 , Rn. 26. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 . Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 162. 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 .
  77. ^ BGH, judgment of March 15, 2005, 4 StR 64/05 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2005, p. 236.
  78. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 82. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  79. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 259, Rn. 83. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  80. ↑ BGHSt 16, 184 (187).
  81. ^ BGH, judgment of February 20, 1974, 3 StR 1/74 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1974, p. 805.
  82. ↑ RGSt 51, 179 (184).
  83. ↑ Wolfgang Mitsch: Criminal Law, Special Part 2: Property Offenses . 3. Edition. Springer Science + Business Media, Berlin 2015, ISBN 978-3-662-44934-9 , pp. 777 .
  84. ↑ BGH, judgment of May 21, 1996, 1 ​​StR 125/96 = criminal defense lawyer 1996, p. 547.
  85. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 260, Rn. 2.
  86. ^ BGH, judgment of March 18, 1982, 4 StR 636/81 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1982, p. 2080.
  87. ^ A b Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with subsidiary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 260, Rn. 3.
  88. ^ BGH, judgment of February 23, 2000, 1 StR 568/99 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, p. 2034 (2034–2035).
  89. ↑ BGHSt 3, 191 .
  90. ↑ Karsten Altenhain: § 260a , Rn. 1. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (Ed.): Criminal Code . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2013, ISBN 978-3-8329-6661-4 .
  91. ↑ 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 .
  92. ↑ Police crime statistics. (No longer available online.) Federal Criminal Police Office, archived from the original on April 23, 2018 ; accessed on October 3, 2017 .
  93. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 12. 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 . Friedrich Geerds: Favoring and receiving stolen goods . In: Goldtdammer's archive 1988, p. 246. Johannes Wessels, Thomas Hillenkamp: Criminal Law Special Part 2: Offenses against assets . 38th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4036-4 , Rn. 826
  94. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 259 , Rn. 12. 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 .
  95. ↑ Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg: § 202d , Rn. 4.1. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Hrsg.): Beckscher Online Comment StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  96. ↑ BGH, judgment of February 1, 2007, 5 StR 372/06 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2007, p. 590.
  97. ↑ BGH, judgment of November 7, 2007, 5 StR 371/07 = New Journal for Criminal Law 2008, p. 409.
  98. ↑ Federal Law Gazette 2015 Part I No. 51, issued on December 17, 2015
  99. ↑ Lorenz Franck: data stealing according to the future § 202d StGB . In: Law of Data Processing 2015, p. 180.
  100. ↑ Gloria Berghäuser: Property and data stealing - a comparative comparison of §§ 202 d, 259 StGB . In: Legal worksheets 2017, p. 244.
  101. ↑ Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg: § 202d , Rn. 8. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary StGB , 30th Edition 2016.
  102. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 202d, Rn. 3.
  103. ↑ PM 17/15: DAV rejects data retention. In: German Lawyers Association. Retrieved January 6, 2017 .
  104. ↑ Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg: The misguided fact of the new data stealing. (PDF) In: Journal for International Criminal Law Doctrine. Retrieved June 29, 2017 .
  105. ↑ Tobias Singelnstein: Excessive and misplaced: The offense of data stealing (§ 202d StGB) in the system of data and information protection under criminal law. (PDF) In: Journal for International Criminal Law Doctrine. Retrieved January 6, 2017 .
  106. ↑ Markus Kompa: Whistleblowers are not allowed to go to lawyers. In: Telepolis. Retrieved June 29, 2017 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on October 9, 2016 .