Document suppression
The suppression of documents is a criminal offense under German criminal law . It is regulated in Section 274 of the Criminal Code. It is systematically in the document offenses. The provision serves to protect the existence of documents .
Objects of crime
In order for a document to be available in the sense of documentary offenses and thus also in the sense of § 274 StGB, a document must fulfill three functions:
- Perpetuation function: The document must permanently embody the content of the declaration.
- Evidence function in the legal sense: The document must be able to make a contribution to the formation of convictions about legally significant facts and must at least be intended to do so.
- Guarantee function: There must be a guarantee behind every document, i. H. the person to whom the embodied declaration can be assigned, i.e. who is the "spiritual author" of the declaration.
On the basis of these three necessary functions, the generally recognized definition of a certificate in the sense of § § 267 ff. StGB results : "A certificate is any written human thought statement that is suitable and intended as evidence in legal transactions and allows its issuer to be identified."
The offense of document suppression includes not only the document as an offense but also technical records . Compare the parallel criminal offense of forgery of documents , the forgery of technical records acc. Section 268 of the Criminal Code.
The element of the offense belongs in sentence 1 of the legal text does not mean the property situation under civil law, but the right to provide evidence, which is not only available to the perpetrator.
Acts
In addition to forging documents, both the destruction, i.e. the complete revocation of the document status, as well as damage, which includes the impairment as evidence. The act of oppression, on the other hand, is possible without the influence of substance, and means the withdrawal or withholding of the document.
Subjective fact
In addition to intent with regard to the offense, the perpetrator must have the intention to inflict disadvantage. However, this is not intended to be understood in the sense of dolus directus first degree, but it only depends on whether the perpetrator is aware that he is harming someone else's right. This is justified by the fact that the intention does not characterize the conviction of the offender or his motivation for the act, but the injustice of the act itself.
The disadvantage here is any impairment of third-party rights to provide evidence. However, thwarting a state fine should not be a disadvantage within the meaning of § 274 StGB. This is justified by the fact that the fine is merely punitive and has no economic purpose.
illegality
It is controversial whether consent eliminates the illegality . This depends on whether one regards the general legal protection of documents as the legal asset of § 274 StGB, i.e. legal transactions per se, or just individual legal protection.
Competition against other offenses
Relationship to theft according to Section 242 of the Criminal Code
If the perpetrator takes away someone else's document, the main question is whether he (alone or also) acts with the intention of illegally appropriating it. Willingness to approve in the context of theft and will to suppress one another are not necessarily mutually exclusive , so that unity in accordance with § 52 StGB is possible.
Relationship to forgery of documents according to Section 267 of the Criminal Code
If the damage to a document according to § 274 para. 1 no. 1 2nd case of the StGB from the outset only the falsification of the document according to Section 267, Paragraph 1, 2nd case of the StGB, suppresses the forgery of documents in accordance with § 267 StGB at the competitive level the factually implemented § 274 StGB. Example: Someone tears off the price tag from a product (damage to the document made up of the price label and the product - Section 274 of the Criminal Code) and sticks it onto a more expensive item (falsification of the original composite document - Section 267 (1) 2nd case of the German Criminal Code). The perpetrator is only punishable under Section 267 (1) 2nd case of the StGB.
