Forgery of documents (Germany)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The forgery is in criminal law in Germany a criminal offense is, in the portion 23 of the particular part of the criminal code (CC) in § 267 is regulated. Document offenses are protected by the security and reliability of legal transactions with documents, technical records and data as evidence .

A certificate is an embodied, general or for the initiated understandable explanation of thoughts, which is suitable and intended as evidence in legal transactions and allows its issuer to be identified. Legal transactions include the area of ​​life in which business and business-like actions are carried out.

Section 267 of the Criminal Code prohibits deceiving the authenticity of a document in order to protect legal transactions from the dissemination of manipulated documents. Section 267 of the Criminal Codenamesthe production of a false document, the falsification of a genuine document and the deliberate use of a false or falsified document, in each case with the intent to deceive,as criminal acts.

A prison sentence of up to five years or a fine can be imposed for falsifying documents . Document offenses account for around one percent of all criminal offenses recorded by the police. The clear-up rate of these acts lies with 80 to 90 percent compared to other categories of offenses to above-average level.

Normalization

Since its last amendment on November 26, 2015, Section 267 of the Criminal Code has read as follows:

(1) Anyone who creates a false document to deceive legal transactions, falsifies a genuine document or uses a fake or falsified document is punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine.

(2) The attempt is punishable.

(3) In particularly serious cases, the penalty is imprisonment from six months to ten years. A particularly serious case is usually when the perpetrator

1. acts on a commercial basis or as a member of a gang that has joined forces for the continued commission of fraud or forgery of documents,
2. causes a large-scale loss of property,
3. the security of legal transactions is significantly endangered by a large number of false or falsified documents or
4. Abuses his powers or his position as a public official or European public official.

(4) A prison sentence of one year to ten years, in less serious cases of imprisonment of six months to five years, shall be punished for anyone who falsifies the documents as a member of a gang committed to the continued commission of criminal offenses according to Sections 263 bis 264 or 267 to 269, commits commercially.

Because of the standard range of penalties of up to five years' imprisonment or a fine, falsifying documents is an offense in accordance with Section 12 (2) StGB .

Section 267 of the Criminal Code serves to protect legal transactions: The standard is intended to ensure that the person who appears as the issuer of a document has actually made the legal declarations contained therein. This is to prevent people from being harmed by manipulated documents. Incontrast, § 267 StGB doesnot protectthe correctness of the content of documents. Other facts serve to protect them, such as false certification in office ( Section 348 of the Criminal Code).

History of origin

Documents were already used in Roman law . Particularly in the case of transfer of ownership transactions within the scope of manipulation , but also outside of this, documents regularly served purely for the purpose of securing evidence under private law, in that the testimony was put down in writing by people (witness certificate: testatio ). In the Republican and Classical times, wooden tablets ( tabulae ) were used for this purpose , which were tryptichal connected to each other and which received the witness seal pressed in wax. It was folded inwards, secured with a string and a seal and stored. Under Hellenistic influence, the content of the document changed to the receipt document, from which it was no longer a long way to the written form used today. The predecessor of the offense of forgery of documents is the falsum of Roman law, which made a large number of acts of forgery a criminal offense. As a result of the reception of Roman law in the Middle Ages , this control technology remained in German-speaking countries until the 18th century. Only modern legal systems increasingly split this bundling of different acts into individual crime groups. For example, the Prussian General Land Law of 1794 standardized several document offenses as a special form of fraud . In the 19th century the document offenses were further spun off as a separate group of offenses, such as in Baden Penal Code of 1845 and the Prussian Penal Code of 1851. This regulation, which entered into force on 1 January 1872 built the Criminal Code of the German Empire on. With § 267, this contained a norm that made forgery of documents a criminal offense. It was formulated as follows:

Anyone who falsifies or falsely prepares a domestic or foreign public document or such a private document which is of relevance to the evidence of rights or legal relationships and uses it for the purpose of deception will be punished for falsification of documents with prison.

The then Section 267 of the Criminal Code named two forms of documents which it protected equally: those that were issued by a sovereign body and those that were produced by private individuals for the purpose of providing evidence in legal transactions. This distinction was based on the long-standing disagreement as to which features characterize a document. The Reichsgericht considered the provision of evidence to be an essential feature of all documents, which is why it also required public documents to serve as evidence. Therefore, the distinction between the forms of deeds, which was made in Section 267 of the Criminal Code, became irrelevant in court practice. The norm named the falsification of a genuine document and the production of a fake one as constitutive acts. In order to complete the offense, the perpetrator had to make use of the manipulated document for the purpose of deceiving another after his act.

The facts were changed for the first time with effect from June 15, 1943. In the course of this, the distinction between public and private deeds was no longer applicable. Furthermore, the offenses were restructured: the success of using the manipulated document, which had been necessary up to that point, was no longer applicable, so that the offense was already completed by taking one offense. However, the use of the manipulated document was not removed from the facts, but remained as an act. As a result, Section 267 of the Criminal Code had three acts of equal rank: the production of a false document, the falsification of a genuine document and the use of a false or falsified document. As a result, the criminal liability was shifted forward: While the offender had to use the document according to the old version, it was sufficient to edit the document according to the new version. The protection of the facts of the case thus focused on the dangerousness that manipulation actions typically bring with them to legal traffic. The reform thus largely gave Section 267 of the Criminal Code the structure of an abstract endangering offense . In Section 267, Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, the criminal liability of the attempt and the possibility of imposing a prison sentence in serious cases of forgery of documents were newly introduced . The prison was a prison with more stringent prison conditions.

After the collapse of the German Reich , the new version of Section 267 StGB initially continued to apply in both the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany. The GDR Criminal Code, which came into force on July 1, 1968, threatened forgery of documents in Section 240 imprisonment of up to two years or a fine. In the Federal Republic of Germany, with effect from April 1, 1970, in the course of the abolition of the prison sentence, the threat of prison was removed. In their place came the threat of imprisonment from one year to fifteen years; in the simple case of forging documents, imprisonment was replaced by imprisonment of up to five years. On January 1, 1975, another amendment to Section 267 of the Criminal Code came into force, which made it possible for case law to impose a fine instead of a prison sentence.

The sixth Criminal Law Reform Act, which came into force on April 1, 1998, specified the previously unnamed qualified case of forgery of documents in Section 267 of the Criminal Code by means of factual requirements. Several rule examples have also been added . These are aggravated penalties that, unlike qualifications, are not binding. In the case of a standard example, the law only recommends that the judge impose a higher penalty than simple forgery. The maximum sentence was reduced to ten years.

The last amendment to Section 267 of the Criminal Code took effect on November 26, 2015. Here, an example of a rule that intensifies the penalties, which deals with the abuse of one's own official position, was expanded to include European officials. In this way, the legislature wanted to counter corruption within EU institutions.

Objective fact

Features of a document

The object of Section 267 StGB is a document. The term “certificate” is used in common parlance in many different contexts. This makes it difficult to find a clear legal definition that meets the requirements of the criminal law requirement of certainty ( Art. 103 Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law ). Since the document offenses are intended to protect legal transactions from deception, legal science focuses on the functions of documents in legal transactions. In this context, documents serve to reproduce legally relevant declarations in a special way. This particular way describes jurisprudence with three functions: guarantee, perpetuation and proof.

Guarantee function

The sheet of a tachograph is not a certificate due to the lack of an explanation.

In order to fulfill the guarantee function, the declaration must show, at least for the initiated, that a certain person, the issuer, wants to be legally responsible for the content of the declaration. In jurisprudence, there is now a general opinion that the person to whom the content of the declaration can be assigned is considered the issuer. In the past, this view, known as the theory of spirituality, was opposed to a view that, as the issuer, always looked at the person who wrote the certificate. This view is known as the theory of corporeality and is now considered obsolete, as legally relevant documents are regularly created by people other than the person to whom they are to be assigned. This is the case with the deputy , for example .

The guarantee function is missing from declarations that are written anonymously. Such declarations do not reveal any person who wants to stand up for their content in a legally binding manner. The same applies to documents that clearly identify an invented person as the issuer. The guarantee function is also missing if the document templates are not filled out.

In principle, machine recordings do not constitute documents. For example, with the leaves of a tachograph or automated cost accounting, only processes are automatically logged, which means that there is no explanation of thoughts. However, a person can raise such technical records to a document by combining them with their own declaration. This applies to the computer-generated expense report, for example, when it is sent by the creditor to the debtor with the request to pay the specified amount.

Objects of inspection are to be separated from documents. These are objects that have evidential value, but no one wants to stand up as an exhibitor. The evidential value of the visual object arises from the fact that it allows third parties to draw conclusions. A sight object is, for example, a blood-smeared knife at the scene of a murder : the knife does not contain any legally relevant declaration, but it allows third parties to conclude that the knife is the weapon of the crime . If this knife is removed from the scene of the crime or manipulated, it is therefore not a document offense, but it may be a crime against the administration of justice , such as an obstruction of punishment ( Section 258 StGB).

Perpetuation function

In addition to being assigned to an exhibitor, a certificate serves the purpose of permanently recording a declaration. This is known as the perpetuation function ( Latin perpetuus 'permanent' ). In order to meet this requirement, the explanation must be visually perceptible and have sufficient physicality. This applies, for example, if it is recorded in writing on paper. In contrast, this requirement is not met for electronic documents. These only attain the quality of a certificate when they are printed out.

Road signs in combination with a section of the road represent a certificate.

The extent to which reproductions of a document are of document quality is largely determined by the purpose for which they are made. If the reproduction is only intended to show that a document with specific content has been issued, it does not constitute an independent declaration. This applies to transcripts , for example . However, if the reproduction serves to be used instead of the certificate, it has an independent declaration content. This is the case with copies or multiple copies of a contract. The treatment of photocopies is disputed . The prevailing opinion equates copies that are recognizable as such with copies. The opposite view regards copies as documents, since in legal transactions they regularly serve as evidence instead of the photocopied document and are thus used like documents. It therefore corresponds to the protective purpose of Section 267 of the Criminal Code to regard copies as documents. On the other hand, copies that look like original documents are undisputedly considered documents, since legal transactions often place the same trust in them as the original, as they are difficult to distinguish from the original. The same applies to faxes .

If a thought explanation relates to an apparent object, the perpetuation function is fulfilled when the explanation and the apparent object are firmly connected to one another. Such a composite certificate is, for example, a piece of clothing that is welded in a film with a price imprint. This combination contains the statement that the goods cost the price printed on them. On the other hand, there is no sufficient connection if the item of clothing has only been placed in a film so that it can be separated from its price tag with little effort. According to the prevailing opinion, traffic signs , such as a speed limit, are also a composite document . This contains the legally binding declaration that a certain speed may not be exceeded on a certain route section.

Several individual documents can constitute a new document by themselves if their individual components are sufficiently closely linked and the totality of the documents contains a separate declaration. Such an overall document is, for example, commercial trading books , which claim to represent the entire business transactions of a businessman .

Proof function

A beer mat, which serves as the basis for billing, is a certificate.

Finally, a certificate serves as evidence in legal transactions. Therefore, the notarized declaration must first be suitable to provide evidence about a fact. Examination exams are suitable, for example, to demonstrate skills. On the other hand, there is no suitability for evidence if the declaration is obviously false or legally irrelevant. This was assumed by case law, for example in the case of a German Reich ID card, the design of which differed considerably from that of an identity card.

The officially stamped license plate attached to a vehicle provides evidence of a legally relevant fact.

Furthermore, the declaration must not only be suitable, but also specific. Such a determination can already be made when the certificate is produced or later. In the former case there is a letter of intent, in the latter a random certificate. A notarized declaration that is used as evidence in criminal proceedings, for example a document that contains an insult ( Section 185 of the Criminal Code), can be assigned to both types of document: If the perpetrator aims to induce the addressee to act in a legally relevant manner when the document is being drawn up , it is a letter of intent. This is the case, for example, if the offender prepares an offensive document on behalf of a third party in order to induce the recipient to file a criminal complaint against the third party. Otherwise, the evidence will be determined retrospectively by the public prosecutor in the process, which is why the document is a random document. On the other hand, master copies and draft documents are not intended as evidence.

In addition to documents, signs and symbols can also serve as evidence. For example, the TÜV sticker attached to a mounted license plate provides evidence that the vehicle has passed the TÜV test. This is a composite document. The same applies to the signature that an artist gives his painting. On the other hand, there is a lack of evidence in the case of other marks, such as signatures in a library, owner stamps or trademarks . These are not intended to prove a legally relevant declaration, but serve other purposes, e.g. individualization or indication of origin. Therefore, they do not constitute documents. For example, anyone who produces counterfeit products and uses the trademark of another manufacturer is not liable to prosecution for forging documents.

Acts

Section 267 of the Criminal Code names three possible forms of commissioning a forgery of a document: the production of a false document, the falsification of a genuine one and the use of a false or falsified document.

Manufacture of a false certificate

A certificate is not authentic if it comes from someone other than the one who appears to be the issuer. A fake document thus deceives the identity of its author. This is the case regularly, for example, when someone signs a document in someone else's name. Permitted this, but if the name of the carrier by the undersigned represent is. This presupposes that the person making the declaration wants to represent someone else, that the person represented wants to be represented and that representation is legally possible. The use of someone else's name is also not considered to be an offense if the document suggests the identity of the signatory despite the incorrect name being given. In this case, there is no identity deception, only a name deception. This is the case, for example, when someone makes use of a stage name.

If someone fills out a blank form in someone else's name, he or she creates a fake certificate if it is filled in contrary to the instructions of the other person. A fake certificate is also produced by attaching a license plate other than the officially provided license plate to a vehicle.

On the other hand, there is no production of an inauthentic document if someone presents a third-party declaration as his own. In this case, the perpetrator does not assign any declaration content to anyone that he has not submitted. Rather, it is the other way around, with the perpetrator adopting a foreign declaration as his own. Passing off someone else's examination paper as your own is therefore not a forgery of documents. Writing down a false statement is also not a false document. Such a written lie does not deceive legal transactions about the author of a declaration; only the accuracy of the content of the document is affected. However, this is not protected by Section 267 of the Criminal Code.

Falsifying a genuine document

A TÜV badge in combination with a vehicle represents a certificate.

If the certificate reveals the issuer who wants the content of the certified declaration to be included, it is genuine. Such a document is falsified by changing its content, which is significant for the evidence in legal transactions. This action variant therefore covers cases in which the incorrect impression is given that the issuer has submitted the certificate with its changed content. This applies, for example, if someone manipulates TÜV stickers in order to give the impression that all necessary tests have been carried out on the vehicle. On the other hand, there is no falsification if someone pastes over a license plate with reflective film to prevent identification of the vehicle on the radar photo: The pasting does not affect the content of the certificate, which consists of the license plate and the vehicle.

According to the prevailing opinion, a certificate can also be falsified by its issuer. In principle, the latter may change his declaration at any time, but this is subject to legal restrictions if the document is not subject to his sole disposition authority. For example, anyone who changes their own examination performance after submitting it is falsifying a certificate.

Use of a false or falsified document

A false or falsified document is used by anyone who makes it accessible to another in such a way that he can perceive it. This is the case, for example, if someone presents a document to a third party that has been signed in someone else's name without authorization. According to case law, it is sufficient to use a copy of a manipulated document. Participation in road traffic with a vehicle with a wrong license plate number is also part of the offense. A certificate is also needed in that a manipulated parking ticket machine is laid out in such a way that it can be read by inspectors.

Subjective fact

Pursuant to Section 15 of the Criminal Code, criminal liability for forgery requires that the perpetrator acts with at least a certain amount of intent with regard to the objective elements of the offense , i.e. that he approves of the fact that his act carries out one of the characteristics of Section 267 of the Criminal Code. In particular, the perpetrator's knowledge of the essential circumstances from which the document status arises is required. On the other hand, it is not necessary for the perpetrator to understand that a document is available.

According to Section 267 of the Criminal Code, it is still necessary that the offense serves to deceive in legal dealings. The purpose of the perpetrator's actions is to induce the deceived third party to act in a legally relevant manner. According to the prevailing opinion, the perpetrator's direct intent is sufficient for the act of deception . This subjective criterion is missing, for example, in the case of forgeries with which only someone else is to be impressed. According to § 270 StGB, acting to deceive in legal transactions is the same if the perpetrator wants to influence data processing without a person being deceived.

In the past, case law assumed that forgery by a judge was only punishable as such if it also complied with the offense of perversion of the law ( Section 339 of the Criminal Code). Thus the independence of the administration of justice should be protected. After the legal revision of the offense of perversion of the law, conditional intent was sufficient to inspect it. The leveling of the requirements for the subjective offense of perversion of the law to those of other relevant criminal law norms meant that these no longer lagged behind those of perversion of the law. As part of a ruling issued on May 13, 2015, the Federal Court of Justice abandoned its previous case law. A conviction for forgery of documents can therefore also be considered if a violation of the law cannot be proven.

The attempt of forgery according to § 267 para. 2 of the Criminal Code offense.

Litigation and sentencing

Forgery of documents is an official offense. The law enforcement authorities therefore prosecute them ex officio . The time at which the offense is completed varies depending on the offense: the perpetrator completes the creation and falsification of a document by completing the respective manipulation. He completes the use of a manipulated document by giving a third party the opportunity to understand the contents of the document. The time of the completion of the offense regularly coincides with that of the termination . However, if the perpetrator carries out several acts of § 267 StGB along a plan , the perpetrator does not end the offense until he has carried out the last acts. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator produces a fake document in order to then use it. Once the offense has been completed, according begins § 78a of the Criminal Code, the limitation period . According to Section 78 Paragraph 3 Number 4 StGB, this is five years.

The attempted forgery, according to § 267 punishable paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code. An attempt exists, for example, if someone uses a photocopy, which can be recognized as such and therefore does not constitute a document, in legal transactions to deceive someone.

Rule examples

Section 267 (3) of the Criminal Code regulates the particularly serious case of forgery of documents. Compared to the simple forgery of a document, this has a higher penalty range of six months to ten years imprisonment. The existence of a particularly serious case is indicated by several rule examples. These are groups of cases in which the legislature assumes that they are regularly associated with greater injustice. Many rule examples show parallels to the rule examples of fraud.

As a rule, there is a particularly serious case of forgery of documents if the perpetrator is acting commercially. Anyone who wants to tap into a source of income of some duration and scope through multiple forgery of documents acts commercially.

Another rule example is the commission of a gang member. A gang is an association of at least three people to commit several document offenses.

The law also assumes the existence of a particularly serious case if the perpetrator causes a large loss of property. In the opinion of case law, there is a large loss if damage exceeds € 50,000.

As another serious case, Section 267 (3) of the Criminal Code mentions the abuse of powers or the position of public official. Public officials, judges and other persons who hold an office, as well as persons who perform public tasks on behalf of the public sector are considered public officials according to Section 11 (1) number 2 of the Criminal Code. After all, there is usually a particularly serious case when the perpetrator endangers the security of legal transactions with a large number of false or falsified documents. Many legal scholars accept a large number of documents from twenty documents.

qualification

If the perpetrator acts both commercially and as a gang, he meets the qualification of Section 267 (4) StGB. This increases the range of punishment to one to ten years imprisonment. The qualification thus has the quality of a crime . However, the qualification provides for a sentence of half a year to five years' imprisonment for less serious cases.

Law competitions

Be related to an act of § 267 realized Criminal Code other offenses, they can for forgery in laws competitors are. Is displaced § 267 of the Criminal Code in this sense by counterfeiting ( § 146 of the Criminal Code) and the herewith related offenses, the special cases of forgery represent (specialty). There is also legal competition if the perpetrator realizes several variants of action under Section 267 of the Criminal Code. If he first creates a fake document and then uses it to deceive legal transactions, this represents a uniform forgery of documents if the perpetrator had already planned its use when the document was produced. The same applies to the production or falsification of several documents with only one specific and realized intended use.

The production or falsification of documents without a specific intention to use it and later addition of an intention to use it to commit the offense lead to the existence of a majority of the offenses ( Section 53 of the Criminal Code).

Document forgery often occurs in connection with property crimes. If the document serves to carry out fraud ( Section 263 StGB), the two offenses are mostly in unity ( Section 52 StGB). The same can also apply to offenses that are committed with the help of the forged document, such as defamation ( § 187 StGB) and false suspicion ( § 164 StGB).

criminology

Cases of document offenses recorded in the years 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. In the statistics from 1991 and 1992 the old federal states and the whole of Berlin were recorded. Earlier statistics only cover the old federal states.

The statistics do not keep section 267 of the Criminal Code in isolation, but rather summarize them with the other document offenses (sections 268 to 282 of the Criminal Code). Legal scholars assume that around two thirds of all document offenses reported relate to Section 267 of the Criminal Code.

The share of document offenses in all reported crimes is around 1.1%. The absolute number of inspections has mostly declined since the 1990s. Compared to other offenses, the document offenses have an above-average clearing rate. Legal scholars assume that the cause is that the circle of potential perpetrators is small as soon as a manipulated document is discovered. However, they rate the dark field as high .

About a third of the suspects are not Germans. Compared to other crime groups, this represents an above-average proportion. The largest proportion of non-German suspects, around a fifth, are people who are illegally staying in Germany. It is suspected that they often forge documents in order to hide their illegal residence.

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

(absolute / relative)

Clearance rate
1987 40,052 65.5 609 (1.5%) 93.4%
1988 42,959 70.2 662 (1.5%) 94.5%
1989 49,809 80.7 706 (1.4%) 95.4%
1990 44.005 70.2 726 (1.6%) 94.6%
1991 50,429 77.6 699 (1.4%) 94.2%
1992 57.003 86.7 944 (1.7%) 93.5%
1993 81,519 100.7 1,300 (1.6%) 94.4%
1994 77,757 95.6 1,448 (1.9%) 94.2%
1995 81,077 99.4 1,070 (1.3%) 94.1%
1996 82,396 100.7 1,081 (1.3%) 93.8%
1997 80,301 97.9 1,119 (1.4%) 93.1%
1998 75,269 91.7 2,050 (2.7%) 94.5%
1999 72,819 88.8 1,507 (2.1%) 94.6%
2000 71,796 87.4 1,302 (1.8.%) 93.8%
2001 74,223 90.2 1,389 (1.9%) 93.5%
2002 69,397 84.2 1,345 (1.9%) 92.5%
2003 69.097 83.7 1,270 (1.8%) 91.9%
2004 65,511 79.4 966 (1.5%) 90.4%
2005 64,430 78.1 1,086 (1.7%) 90.3%
2006 59,239 71.9 1,012 (1.7%) 88.8%
2007 62.993 76.5 1,312 (2.1%) 87.2%
2008 66,461 80.8 1,542 (2.3%) 86.6%
2009 62,137 75.8 1,338 (2.2%) 86.2%
2010 67,627 82.7 1,779 (2.6%) 86.3%
2011 68,087 83.3 1,511 (2.2%) 85.0%
2012 65,717 80.3 1,437 (2.2%) 82.9%
2013 65,416 81.2 1,426 (2.2%) 80.9%
2014 63,398 78.5 1,447 (2.3%) 80.8%
2015 61,955 76.3 1,291 (2.1%) 81.6%
2016 70.191 85.4 1,296 (1.8%) 83.6%
2017 74,912 90.8 1,361 (1.8%) 84.0%

Related facts

Falsification of technical records, § 268 StGB

Section 268 of the Criminal Code hasthe function of a catch-all offensein relation to Section 267 of the Criminal Code: The standard covers records that do not constitute documents due to the lack of their own explanatory content. The offense is modeled on that of the forgery of documents. Actions subject to punishment are the creation of a false technical record, the falsification of a true record and the use of a falsified or false record.

Falsification of evidence-relevant data, § 269 StGB

Section 269 of the Criminal Code, like Section 268 of the CriminalCode, servesto close gaps in criminal liability. The standard covers the manipulation of data which, due to lack of embodiment, do not constitute documents. The fact that data is manipulated in such a way that it represents a false or falsified document would be printed out. The offense is met, for example, by sending phishing emails, unauthorized loading of empty phone cards and setting up user accounts on the Internet under false names.

Document suppression, § 274 StGB

Section 274 of the Criminal Code makes it a criminal offense to destroy, damage or suppress a document on which another person has the right to provide evidence. The standard fulfills two protective purposes: On the one hand, it protects the existence of documents. On the other hand, it protects the right to use a document to provide evidence.

Counterfeiting of money and stamps, §§ 146–152b StGB

The offense of counterfeiting of money ( Section 146 of the Criminal Code) criminalizes several acts that relate to the counterfeiting of money or the distribution of counterfeit money. Thus, § 146 StGB represents a special case of document forgery. The same applies to the offenses of forgery of stamps ( § 148 StGB), the forgery of payment cards, checks and bills of exchange ( § 152a StGB) and the forgery of payment cards with guarantee function and forms for Euro checks ( § 152b StGB).

Legal situation in other states

In Swiss criminal law , the offense of forgery of documents is regulated in Art. 251 StGB . This fact is fulfilled by anyone who falsifies or falsifies a document or uses someone else's real signature or hand sign to produce a fake document in order to harm someone else or to obtain an unlawful advantage. The range of punishment corresponds to that of the German § 267 StGB.

In Austria , forgery of documents is punishable by imprisonment of up to one year or a fine according to Art. 223 StGB . This fact is fulfilled by anyone who creates a false document with the intent or falsifies a genuine document with the intent that it will be used as evidence. This offense is qualified by the offenses Art. 224 - Art. 224a StGB, which provide a higher range of penalties if the offender manipulates special documents, such as public documents .

literature

  • Volker Erb : § 267. 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 .
  • Thomas Fischer: Criminal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267 .
  • Georg Freund: Document offenses . 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-05361-0 .
  • Martin Heger : § 267. In: Kristian Kühl, Martin Heger: Criminal Code: Comment . 29th, revised edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-70029-3 .
  • Günter Heine , Frank Schuster: § 267 . In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  • Alexander Koch: § 267 . In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  • Stefan Maier: § 267 . In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  • Ingeborg doll : § 267 . In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  • Matthias Weidemann: § 267. In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher online commentary on the StGB. 35th edition. 2017.
  • Petra Wittig : § 267 . In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  • Frank Zieschang : § 267 . In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b Federal Law Gazette 2015 Part I No. 46, issued on November 25, 2015, p. 2025.
  2. ↑ BGHSt 40, 203 .
  3. ↑ Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 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 . Günter Heine , Frank Schuster: § 267 , Rn. 1. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 . Ingeborguppe: § 267 , marginal no. 1-8. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  4. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 33, Rn. 1.
  5. ^ Herbert Hausmaninger , Walter Selb : Römisches Privatrecht , Böhlau, Vienna 1981 (9th edition 2001) (Böhlau-Studien-Bücher) ISBN 3-205-07171-9 , p. 206 f.
  6. ↑ Volker Erb: Before §§ 267 ff, Rn. 1. 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 .
  7. ↑ a b Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 14 . 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 . Frank Zieschang: § 267: History of origin . In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .
  8. ↑ Volker Erb: Before §§ 267 ff , Rn. 1; Section 267 , marginal no. 14. 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 .
  9. ^ A b Georg Freund: Document criminal offenses . 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-05361-0 , Rn. 8th.
  10. ↑ ÖNB-ALEX - German Reich Law Gazette Part I 1867-1945. Retrieved January 6, 2021 .
  11. ↑ Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 2. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  12. ↑ Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 15 . 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 .
  13. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Michael Hettinger: Criminal Law Special Part 1: Offenses against personal and community values . 39th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4035-7 , Rn. 788.
  14. ↑ Jörg Eisele: The rule example method: offense or sentence solution? In : Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2006, p. 309 (309-310).
  15. ↑ BT-Drs. 18/4350 , pp. 16, 20.
  16. ↑ Helmut Satzger: The term "document" in the penal code . In: Jura 2012, p. 106. Thomas Bode, Dawid Ligocki: Unsolved problems of the document concept . In: Legal Training 2015, p. 989.
  17. ↑ BGHSt 4, 60 (61).
  18. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 6. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  19. ↑ BGHSt 13, 382 (385-386).
  20. ^ Sönke Gerhold: On the person of the issuer of a certificate in cases of open representation. A contribution to document criminal law . In: JURA 2009, p. 498.
  21. ↑ Reinhard Frank: The criminal code for the German Reich together with the introductory laws. 18th edition. JCB Mohr, Tübingen 1931, § 267 Note V 1 b.
  22. ↑ Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 124 . 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 . Georg Küpper: Criminal Law, Special Part. 1. Offenses against legal interests of the person and community . 3. Edition. Springer, Heidelberg 2006, ISBN 978-3-540-33904-5 , Part 2, § 1, Rn. 28.
  23. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 10. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  24. ↑ 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 , § 55, marginal no. 28.
  25. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 8. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  26. ^ Henning Radtke: New forms of data storage and document criminal law . In: Journal for the entire criminal law science 2003, p. 26 (27–28). Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 32, Rn. 2.
  27. ↑ BGHSt 2, 50 .
  28. ↑ BGHSt 2, 35 (38).
  29. ^ Susanne Beck: Copies and faxes in document criminal law . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2007, p. 423 (424).
  30. ↑ BGHSt 24, 140 (140-141).
  31. ^ Nina Nestler: The certificate quality of photocopies and (computer) faxes . In: Journal for Legal Studies 2010, p. 608 (608–609).
  32. ↑ Georg Freund: On the question of the document quality of photocopies, comment on BayObLG, judgment of July 27, 1990, RReg. 3 St 116/90 = legal training 1991, p. 723. Michael Heghmanns: Criminal law for all semesters: special part . Springer, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-540-85314-5 , Rn. 1365. Ingeborguppe: § 267 , marginal no. 22-23. In: Urs Kindhäuser, Ulfrid Neumann, Hans-Ullrich Paeffgen (ed.): Criminal Code . 5th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-3106-0 .
  33. ^ BGH, judgment of January 27, 2010, 5 StR 488/09 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2010, p. 703 (704).
  34. ↑ Jürgen Welp: The certificate and its duplicate . In: Wilfried Küper, Jürgen Welp (Hrsg.): Festschrift for Walter Stree and Johannes Wessels on their 70th birthday . Heidelberg 1993, ISBN 3-8114-0893-3 , pp. 511 (523) .
  35. ^ Matthias Jahn: Comment on BGH, decision of January 27, 2010, 5 StR 488/09 . In: Juristische Schulung 2010, p. 554. Katharina Beckemper: Comment on OLG Zweibrücken, judgment of April 3, 1998, 1 Ss 34/98. In: Juristische Schulung 2000, p. 123 (128).
  36. ↑ OLG Cologne, judgment of July 4, 1978, 1 Ss 231/78 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1979, p. 729.
  37. ↑ Bernd Heinrich: The composite document . In: Legal worksheets 2011, p. 423 (424–425).
  38. ↑ Andreas Lickleder: Documents in road traffic (and elsewhere) - who actually declares what legally binding? In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2014, p. 110 (112–113).
  39. ↑ On the other hand, the document property is rejected by OLG Cologne, September 15, 1998, Ss 395/98 - 180 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1999, p. 1042 (1043).
  40. ↑ 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 , § 55, marginal no. 36.
  41. ↑ BGHSt 17, 297 .
  42. ↑ BayObLG, judgment of December 17, 1980, RReg. 3 St 250/79 af = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, 772 (773).
  43. ↑ OLG Munich, judgment of January 5, 2010, 5St RR 354/09 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2010, p. 173.
  44. ^ Günter Heine , Frank Schuster: § 267 , Rn. 14. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 . Petra Wittig: § 267 , Rn. 32-34. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  45. ↑ BayObLG, judgment of May 11, 1992, 5St RR 16/92 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1992, p. 3311 (3312). BGH, judgment of February 26, 2003, 2 StR 411/02 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2003, p. 543 (544).
  46. ↑ OLG Celle, judgment of July 25, 2011, 31 Ss 30/11 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2011, p. 2983.
  47. ↑ Birte Wiese: Use of a vehicle registration number on an adhesive film as a forgery of documents . In: Juristische Arbeitsblätter 2016, p. 426 (426–427).
  48. ↑ OLG Frankfurt, judgment of October 22, 1969, 1 Ss 409/69 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1970, p. 673.
  49. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 267 , Rn. 15-16. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 . Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 32, Rn. 13-16.
  50. ↑ BGHSt 2, 370 .
  51. ↑ BGHSt 1, 117 (121).
  52. ↑ BGHSt 5, 149 .
  53. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Michael Hettinger: Criminal Law Special Part 1: Offenses against personal and community values . 39th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4035-7 , Rn. 829
  54. ↑ BGHSt 33, 159 (160).
  55. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 267 , Rn. 172. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .
  56. ^ Rudolf Rengier: Criminal Law Special Part II: Offenses against the person and the general public . 17th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2016, ISBN 978-3-406-68815-7 , § 33, Rn. 13.
  57. ↑ BGHSt 5, 295 (296-297).
  58. ↑ a b BGHSt 18, 66 (70-71).
  59. ↑ BayObLG, December 17, 1980, RReg. 3 St 250/79 af = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1981, p. 772.
  60. ↑ Martin Heger: § 267 . Marg. 1, 17. 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 ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 29
  61. ↑ Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 20. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 . Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 80. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  62. ^ AG Waldbröl, judgment of July 19, 2005, 4 Ds 385/05 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2005, p. 2870.
  63. ↑ BGHSt 45, 197 .
  64. ↑ OLG Koblenz, judgment of September 19, 1994, 2 Ss 123/94 = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1995, p. 1624 (1625).
  65. ↑ Johannes Wessels, Michael Hettinger: Criminal Law Special Part 1: Offenses against personal and community values . 39th edition. CF Müller, Heidelberg 2015, ISBN 978-3-8114-4035-7 , Rn. 847.
  66. ↑ 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 , § 55, marginal no. 62.
  67. ↑ BGHSt 36, 64 (65).
  68. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 91. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  69. ↑ BGHSt 5, 291 .
  70. ↑ Bernd Hecker: Comment on Cologne Higher Regional Court, decision of August 10, 2001, pp . 264/01 - 143 . In: Juristische Schulung 2002, p. 224.
  71. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 98. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 . Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 23. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - subsidiary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  72. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 267 , Rn. 251. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .
  73. ↑ Volker Erb: § 267, Rn. 205 . 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 .
  74. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 42. Frank Zieschang: § 267 , marginal no. 270. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .
  75. ↑ 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 , § 55, marginal no. 72.
  76. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 270 , Rn. 3. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  77. ↑ BGHSt 10, 294 . BGHSt 32, 364 .
  78. ↑ BGH, judgment of May 13, 2015, 3 StR 498/14.
  79. ↑ Right magnifying glass, subsequent amendment of a judgment by the judge - perversion of law or just forgery of documents? Christoph Safferling: Perversion of the law and "blocking effect" .
  80. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 45.
  81. ↑ OLG Düsseldorf, decision of September 14, 2000, 2b Ss 222/00 - 64/00 I = Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2001, p. 167.
  82. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 48.
  83. ^ Günter Heine , Frank Schuster: § 267 , Rn. 104. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  84. ↑ Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 27. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  85. ^ Günter Heine , Frank Schuster: § 267 , Rn. 105. In: Adolf Schönke, Horst Schröder, Albin Eser (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 29th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2014, ISBN 978-3-406-65226-4 .
  86. ↑ BGHSt 48, 354 (360).
  87. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 54.
  88. ↑ Petra Wittig: § 267 , Rn. 100. In: Helmut Satzger, Wilhelm Schluckebier, Gunter Widmaier (eds.): Criminal Code: Commentary . 3. Edition. Carl Heymanns Verlag, Cologne 2016, ISBN 978-3-452-28685-7 .
  89. ↑ Jens Peglau: The standard examples of § 263 Abs. 3 Nr. 2 StGB . In: Journal for Commercial and Tax Criminal Law , 2004, p. 7 (9).
  90. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 57.
  91. ^ BGH, judgment of January 26, 2005, 2 StR 516/04 = Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 2005, p. 329.
  92. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , § 267, Rn. 58.
  93. ↑ BGHSt 5, 291 (293).
  94. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 116. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  95. ^ Frank Zieschang: § 267 , Rn. 2. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 . Matthias Jahn: Comment on BGH, decision of January 27, 2010, 5 StR 488/09 . In: Legal training 2010, p. 554.
  96. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 267 , Rn. 120. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  97. ↑ a b c PKS time series 1987 to 2017. (CSV) Federal Criminal Police Office, May 8, 2018, accessed on October 10, 2018 .
  98. ↑ Police crime statistics. Federal Criminal Police Office, accessed on September 21, 2017 .
  99. ↑ a b c Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 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 .
  100. ↑ Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 4. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 .
  101. ^ Georg Freund: Document Crimes . 2nd Edition. Springer, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-05361-0 , Rn. 13. Alexander Koch: § 267 , Rn. 4. In: Dieter Dölling, Gunnar Duttge, Dieter Rössner, Stefan König (eds.): Entire criminal law: StGB - StPO - ancillary laws . 4th edition. Nomos, Baden-Baden 2017, ISBN 978-3-8487-2955-5 . Frank Zieschang: Preliminary remarks on §§ 267 ff , Rn. 2. In: Heinrich Laufhütte (Ed.): Leipzig Commentary on the Criminal Code . 12th edition. tape 9 . Volume 2: §§ 267–283d. De Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 978-3-89949-697-0 .
  102. ↑ Volker Erb: § 267 , Rn. 12. 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 .
  103. ^ Matthias Weidemann: § 268 , Rn. 2 . In: Bernd von Heintschel-Heinegg (Ed.): Beckscher Online Commentary on the StGB. 35th edition. 2017.
  104. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 268 , Rn. 18. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  105. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 269 , Rn. 2. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  106. ↑ Ingeborg Doll: The data document in criminal law . In: Legal Training 2012, p. 961.
  107. ^ BGH, judgment of May 13, 2003, 3 StR 128/03 = New Journal for Criminal Law Jurisprudence Report 2003, p. 265.
  108. ↑ Stefan Petermann: The establishment of fake Internet accounts - an application of § 269 StGB? In: Juristische Schulung 2010, p. 774 (778).
  109. ↑ Stefan Maier: § 274 , Rn. 1-2. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Comment . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
  110. ↑ BGHSt 23, 231 .
  111. ↑ Thomas Fischer: Penal Code with ancillary laws . 65th edition. CH Beck, Munich 2018, ISBN 978-3-406-69609-1 , before § 146, marginal no. 2.
  112. ^ Stefan Maier: § 146 , Rn. 3. In: Holger Matt, Joachim Renzikowski (Ed.): Criminal Code: Commentary . Vahlen, Munich 2013, ISBN 978-3-8006-3603-7 .
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on November 17, 2017 .