Areas of criminal law

German law has no fixed definition. A useful guide is Section 74c of the Courts Constitution Act (GVG), which assigns certain cases at the regional courts to commercial criminal chambers. These include offenses under company law, capital markets law, foreign trade law, and tax law, as well as bankruptcy offenses, subsidy and credit fraud, and commercial bribery. Fraud, breach of trust, money laundering, withholding social security contributions, and corruption involving public officials are included when special knowledge of business is needed to assess the case.

Under Section 266 StGB, breach of trust means violating a duty to look after another’s financial interests, or abusing a power over another’s assets, and thereby causing a loss. Such a duty is owed, for example, by managing directors, board members, or asset managers. Breach of trust proceedings often center on the question of whether a business decision by a manager that later proved disadvantageous was justified from a commercial point of view. Business decisions are not a breach of duty merely because they later turn out to be wrong. For board members of a stock corporation, Section 93(1) sentence 2 of the Stock Corporation Act (AktG), the origin of what is known as the “business judgment rule,” sets out when such a decision does not constitute a breach of duty. In such matters, the task of the defense is typically to convey the business perspective to the prosecuting authorities or the court, to build understanding for decisions involving risk, and to explain why decisions were justified from a business point of view at the time they were made, despite later negative effects.

The public prosecutor opens an investigation once there are sufficient factual indications of a crime (Section 152(2) StPO). Common triggers are (anonymous) criminal complaints from private individuals and reports following official inspections (e.g., an inspection of business premises by the trade supervisory authority, customs checks under the Act to Combat Undeclared Work (SchwarzArbG), or a VAT spot check). The public prosecutor then orders further investigative measures, such as witness interviews, searches, bank account inquiries, or inquiries with social insurance institutions. Suspects may be assisted by defense counsel at any stage (Section 137 StPO), and counsel may inspect the case file (Section 147 StPO). The investigation concludes with an indictment or an application for a penal order, or with the dismissal of the proceedings for lack of sufficient suspicion (Section 170(2) StPO) or subject to conditions (Section 153a StPO). If the indictment is filed with the regional court, white collar cases are heard by a commercial criminal chamber (Section 74c GVG).

Under Section 371 AO, tax evasion goes unpunished if the person gives the tax authorities complete, correct information on all offenses involving one type of tax for at least the last ten calendar years and pays the evaded tax plus interest on time. This is ruled out, for example, insofar as an audit order has been issued, or if the person knew or should have known the offense had been discovered. Above 25,000 euros per offense, prosecution is dropped under Section 398a AO if an extra 10 to 20 percent of the tax is paid. In July 2026, Germany’s finance and justice ministries announced plans to abolish this immunity in its current form; no such bill existed as of October 2026.

Because the law imposes strict requirements on a successful voluntary disclosure, support from an expert in criminal tax law is strongly recommended. We weigh the risks and opportunities of a voluntary disclosure, negotiate with the tax authorities, and ensure that the intended effect of the disclosure is actually achieved.

The law provides for a fine or up to five years in prison, and six months to ten years in especially serious cases (Section 370(1) and (3) AO). A case is usually especially serious if taxes were evaded on a large scale; the Federal Court of Justice assumes this where more than 50,000 euros were evaded. Within the statutory range, the court sets the sentence based on culpability and the factors in Section 46 StGB, such as the consequences of the offense, the way it was committed, the defendant’s history, and conduct after the offense, in particular efforts to make amends. There is no statutory table that links specific amounts to specific sentences. For this reason, even the way the defense handles the investigation can have a decisive effect on the judgment of the court that later hears the case.

The limitation period for prosecuting tax evasion is generally five years (Section 78(3) no. 4 StGB). In the especially serious cases listed in Section 370(3) sentence 2 nos. 1 to 6 AO, such as evasion on a large scale, it is 15 years (Section 376(1) AO). The period only begins once the offense is completed (Section 78a StGB); when that happens depends, among other things, on the type of tax and on whether a return was filed. Certain investigative steps interrupt the limitation period, such as notice that proceedings have been opened (Section 78c StGB, Section 376(2) AO). The tax assessment period, which is ten years for evaded taxes (Section 169(2) sentence 2 AO), is a separate matter. This is another reason why holistic advice in criminal tax proceedings, taking into account both the tax and the criminal law aspects of a matter, is so important.

Proceedings are opened once the tax authorities, the police, the prosecutor, their investigators, or a criminal judge take a step clearly aimed at prosecuting a tax offense (Section 397 AO). If only tax offenses are involved, the tax authorities generally investigate independently and may themselves apply to the court for a penal order (Sections 386 and 400 AO).

As in other criminal proceedings, the investigation ends with an application for a penal order, an indictment, or a dismissal. Even where there is sufficient suspicion, the proceedings can be dismissed in exchange for a payment for lesser offenses (Vergehen) such as tax evasion if the condition removes the public interest in prosecution and the degree of guilt does not preclude it; the accused and usually the court must consent (Section 153a StPO). Such a dismissal is not a finding of guilt and is not entered in the Federal Central Criminal Register (Section 3 BZRG).

If an indictment is filed with the regional court, a commercial criminal chamber also has jurisdiction over criminal tax cases (Section 74c(1) sentence 1 no. 3 GVG). In court proceedings, the competent officials of the tax office’s Fines and Criminal Matters Office also have the right to attend and to ask questions.

Billing fraud generally falls under the general offense of fraud under Section 263 StGB. It may apply when services are billed that were not provided at all, not in that form, or not personally as the billing rules require, and a health insurer, an association of statutory health insurance physicians, or a patient suffers a loss as a result. According to case law, there can be a loss even if the treatment was medically appropriate but formal billing requirements were not met. The penalty is up to five years in prison or a fine, or six months to ten years in especially serious cases, for example where the offender acts on a commercial basis (Section 263(3) StGB); added to this are repayment claims and possible consequences for the license to practice and for admission to statutory health insurance practice. In practice, such allegations are often linked to further allegations, such as forgery of documents under Section 267 StGB, corruption offenses in the healthcare sector (Sections 299a and 299b StGB), or classic white collar offenses such as breach of trust (Section 266 StGB) or tax evasion (Section 370 AO).

Not every treatment error is a crime. It becomes relevant under criminal law if a patient is injured or dies as a result; negligent bodily injury (Section 229 StGB) or negligent homicide (Section 222 StGB) may then apply. In invasive treatments, where the body must first be injured in order to carry out the healing procedure, this threshold is, however, quickly reached. In particular, a procedure without valid consent, for example after the patient was inadequately informed, can also be a criminal offense, which is why medical compliance is of particular importance from a criminal law perspective as well. Doubts as to whether the procedure was faulty benefit the accused, and the evidentiary relief available in civil medical malpractice law does not apply here.

A criminal case can also have consequences beyond the sentence where the court orders what are known as ancillary consequences (Nebenfolgen). For physicians, the competent licensing authority (in Berlin, the State Office for Health and Social Affairs, Landesamt für Gesundheit und Soziales) may order the suspension of the license to practice once criminal proceedings have been opened on suspicion of an offense that could show the physician to be unworthy or unreliable to practice medicine (Section 6(1) no. 1 of the Bundesärzteordnung, BÄO). In this case, the person concerned first receives a letter giving them an opportunity to be heard. If a physician proves to be unworthy or unreliable, the license must be revoked (Section 5(2) BÄO). Prosecutors and courts may inform the competent authorities about the case (Section 14(1) of the Introductory Act to the Courts Constitution Act, EGGVG). Disciplinary proceedings by the medical association and consequences for admission to statutory health insurance practice may also follow. The defense should therefore take these consequences into account from the outset and, in all strategic defense decisions, keep in mind not only their possible criminal law consequences but also their possible professional law consequences.

Both offenses concern public officials who demand, accept a promise of, or accept a benefit for themselves or a third party. A public official who accepts such a benefit commits the offense of accepting a benefit (Section 331 StGB) or of taking a bribe (Section 332 StGB); the person who gives such a benefit commits the offense of granting a benefit (Section 333 StGB) or of giving a bribe (Section 334 StGB), depending on whether the official conduct agreed in return remains within the official’s duties (in which case it is accepting or granting a benefit) or breaches them (in which case it is taking or giving a bribe). Thus, even merely granting or accepting a benefit for an act of the official that is in itself lawful and in line with their duties is a crime. Accepting a benefit carries up to three years in prison or a fine, taking a bribe six months to five years in prison; largely corresponding penalty ranges also apply to the giving side under Sections 333 and 334 StGB.

A benefit is anything the recipient has no right to and that improves their situation. Examples include gifts, invitations to meals, trips, or events, discounts, loans, paid side jobs, and payments to relatives or associations. Accepting a benefit is a crime if it is given for the performance of official duties. It is not a crime if the official did not ask for it and the competent authority approved its acceptance in advance, or approves it after being notified without delay (Section 331(3) StGB). Civil servants may accept rewards and gifts relating to their office only in exceptional cases and with their employer’s consent (Section 42 BeamtStG, Section 71 BBG).

Under Section 299 StGB, an employee or agent of a company commits an offense by demanding, accepting a promise of, or accepting a benefit in return for unfairly favoring another party in competition when goods or services are purchased. It is also an offense to do so, without the company’s consent, in return for breaching duties to the company in such a purchase. The same applies in reverse to anyone who offers, promises, or grants such benefits. The penalty is up to three years in prison or a fine, and three months to five years in especially serious cases (Section 300 StGB). The offense is prosecuted upon request or if the authorities find a special public interest (Section 301 StGB).

If a legal entity such as a GmbH or stock corporation becomes unable to pay its debts (Section 17 InsO) or overindebted (Section 19 InsO), the members of its management body must file for insolvency without culpable delay, at the latest three weeks after it became unable to pay and six weeks after it became overindebted (Section 15a(1) InsO). The same applies to partnerships with legal capacity in which no personally liable partner is a natural person, such as a GmbH & Co. KG. Anyone who intentionally fails to file or files late faces up to three years in prison or a fine, or up to one year in prison or a fine if negligent (Section 15a(4) and (5) InsO).

Under Section 17 InsO, a debtor is unable to pay its debts if it is not in a position to meet its payment obligations as they fall due; this is generally presumed if the debtor has stopped making payments. Under Section 19 InsO, a debtor is overindebted if its assets no longer cover its existing liabilities, unless, in the circumstances, it is predominantly likely that the business will continue; the forecast period for this has now been shortened to twelve months. If there is a risk that grounds for insolvency exist in a company, legal advice should be sought without delay.

The public prosecutor examines whether there are sufficient factual indications of a crime and, if so, opens an investigation. In doing so, the public prosecutor relies primarily on the files of the insolvency proceedings and the expert reports prepared in them. The key question is usually when the company became unable to pay or overindebted; investigators analyze accounting records, bank statements, and payment history, often with expert help. Suspects are summoned for questioning or asked for a written statement and do not have to comment on the allegations (Section 136(1) sentence 2 StPO). As a rule, it makes sense to first obtain access to the case file through defense counsel (Section 147 StPO). Investigations often extend to bankruptcy offenses, fraud, and unpaid social security contributions.

Under Section 266a(1) StGB, an employer commits an offense by withholding employees’ social security contributions from the collecting agency, regardless of whether wages are paid. Subsection 2 covers employer contributions if the employer gives false or incomplete information or, in breach of duty, keeps the agency uninformed, for example with undeclared work or workers misclassified as independent contractors. In a GmbH, the managing director is responsible (Section 14 StGB). A strict standard applies here: as a rule, suspects cannot argue that contributions were not paid because the funds for them were lacking. The penalty is up to five years in prison or a fine, or six months to ten years in especially serious cases (Section 266a(4) StGB). In individual cases, the court may waive punishment if the employer has informed the agency in writing, by the due date or immediately afterward, of the amount of the contributions and has explained why payment is impossible despite serious efforts (Section 266a(6) StGB).

That depends on who summons you. Suspects do not have to comply with a police summons for questioning, but they must submit to identification measures (Section 81b StPO). By contrast, suspects have a duty to appear when summoned by the public prosecutor or the court (Section 163a(3) and Section 133 StPO); otherwise, they may be brought there by force. There is no duty to make a statement in any case. Suspects may remain silent and consult defense counsel at any time, even before questioning, and must be informed of these rights (Section 136(1) sentence 2 and Section 163a(4) StPO). No adverse inferences may be drawn from a suspect’s silence. For this reason, it is always advisable to first obtain access to the case file through defense counsel (Section 147 StPO) and only then decide whether and how to respond.

A judge orders the search, or in exigent circumstances the public prosecutor or its investigators (Section 105(1) StPO). You may be present as the occupant; otherwise, a representative, adult relative, household member, or neighbor is to be called in where possible (Section 106(1) StPO), so the search can go ahead without you. You need not comment on the allegations and may contact a defense lawyer. On request, you receive a list of the items taken (Section 107 StPO). A judge’s search warrant can be challenged by a complaint (Section 304 StPO), and a seizure without a court order by applying for a court decision (Section 98(2) StPO). A review of the lawfulness of the search can be of great importance for the later course of the proceedings with regard to the use of evidence.

That can only be assessed case by case. The objection must be filed within two weeks of service with the court that issued the penal order (Section 410(1) StPO); after that, the penal order has the same effect as a final judgment (Section 410(3) StPO). Prompt action is therefore called for. At a trial following the objection, the person concerned has the opportunity to present exculpatory facts and to file motions to take evidence. The court is not bound by the penal order but makes a new decision of its own based on the trial; in doing so, it may also impose a higher sentence (Section 411(4) StPO). The objection can be limited to specific points, such as the amount of the daily rate (Section 410(2) StPO); this can counter certain risks of a trial following an objection. In weighing this up, it often also matters whether the conviction appears on a certificate of good conduct; as a rule, fines of up to 90 daily rates do not if no other sentence is recorded (Section 32(2) no. 5 BZRG).

Pretrial detention requires strong suspicion and a ground for detention, typically flight, risk of flight, or risk of tampering with evidence (Section 112 StPO), and it must be proportionate to the significance of the case. Anyone arrested on a warrant must be brought before the court without delay and questioned by the next day (Section 115 StPO); a defense lawyer is appointed if the person has none (Sections 140(1) no. 4 and 141(2) StPO). The defense can see to it that the execution of the arrest warrant is suspended subject to conditions, for example in return for an order imposing reporting requirements or for bail (Section 116 StPO). Detainees may request a detention review at any time (Section 117 StPO). Before a judgment, detention for the same offense may last longer than six months only in exceptional cases (Section 121 StPO).

Internal investigations clarify suspected misconduct on behalf of a company, before or while the authorities investigate. We conduct such investigations and link them, where needed, to the company’s defense. How we approach them is described on the page Legal advice on criminal matters and internal investigations.

Judgments of the local court can be challenged by an appeal on facts and law (Berufung); the case is then heard anew before the regional court as a second instance on the facts, including a new taking of evidence (Sections 312 et seq. StPO). Alternatively, a leapfrog appeal on points of law (Sprungrevision) directly to the higher regional court is possible (Section 335 StPO). The remedy against judgments of the regional court at first instance and against judgments on an appeal on facts and law is the appeal on points of law (Revision); it reviews the judgment only for legal errors, not for new facts (Section 337 StPO). Court orders, for example on pretrial detention or searches, may be challenged by a complaint (Sections 304 et seq. StPO).

Short deadlines apply: both the appeal on facts and law and the appeal on points of law must be filed within one week of the judgment being pronounced (Sections 314 and 341 StPO). The grounds of an appeal on points of law must be submitted within one month after that deadline or, if the judgment has not yet been served by then, within one month of its service, in writing by defense counsel or a lawyer or on the record of the court registry (Section 345 StPO). Restoration of the status quo ante (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand) is possible only under strict conditions (Sections 44 et seq. StPO). Legal advice, and where appropriate a second opinion, should therefore be sought immediately after the judgment is pronounced.

We conduct appeal proceedings at all levels, including where another defense lawyer handled the trial. In doing so, we review the judgment, the trial record, and the case file for procedural errors, inadequate evaluation of evidence, errors in sentencing, and violations of substantive law. Omissions at first instance, such as a motion to take evidence that was not filed, cannot be remedied in every case, but often still can be in an appeal on facts and law or through a carefully reasoned appeal on points of law. We assess in each individual case whether an appeal has prospects of success and openly point out possible risks, such as the question of whether a change for the worse is ruled out (Section 331 StPO).

If a person is to be extradited from Germany to another country, the higher regional court decides whether extradition is permissible (Section 13 of the Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters, IRG). Within the European Union, the proceedings are usually based on a European arrest warrant (Sections 78 et seq. IRG); outside the EU, they are based on the applicable extradition treaty and the IRG. The proceedings are complex and under time pressure, because the person sought is often taken into extradition detention as soon as they are arrested.

We represent people facing extradition throughout the proceedings, from the arrest and the detention review hearing to the hearing before the higher regional court. We examine whether the requirements for extradition are met and whether there are obstacles, such as detention conditions in the requesting state that violate human rights or breaches of minimum standards of the rule of law, and we work to have the extradition detention lifted or its execution suspended.

We also advise on requests for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, for example when foreign authorities request evidence, interviews, or the freezing of assets in Germany. In doing so, we often work with lawyers in the requesting state and can draw on an international network of cooperating lawyers, so that the defense in Germany and abroad is coordinated.

Anyone affected by an extradition request or a European arrest warrant should seek legal assistance as early as possible.

For more information, see Criminal defense.

Employment criminal law concerns the obligations of employers and their managers, such as managing directors, board members, and human resources managers. Common allegations include withholding and misappropriating wages, that is, social security contributions (Section 266a StGB), often in connection with workers being wrongly treated as independent contractors. Other allegations concern violations of the laws on undeclared work, minimum wage, and temporary agency work, as well as workplace accidents causing injury in which negligent bodily injury or negligent homicide is at issue.

Investigations are often conducted by the customs service’s Financial Control of Undeclared Work, which has the same powers as the police (Section 14 SchwarzArbG). Proceedings often begin with unannounced inspections and searches at the business, the seizure of payroll and personnel records, and the questioning of employees. In addition to the criminal law consequences, there is a risk of demands for back payment of social security contributions and taxes, regulatory fines, exclusion from public contracts, and entries in the Central Trade and Industry Register (Gewerbezentralregister). A corporate fine can also be imposed on the company (Sections 30 and 130 OWiG).

As an employment criminal law firm in Berlin, we defend employers, managing directors, and managers in businesses from the first contact with customs, the public prosecutor, or the employers’ liability insurance association through trial. We review the case file, examine in particular whether there actually was an employment relationship or a misclassification of workers as independent contractors and who in the company was responsible, and coordinate the criminal proceedings with social security law and employment law proceedings. Anyone who expects an inspection by customs or an investigation, or who has already received a summons, should seek legal advice early on. On Section 266a StGB, see also the section on insolvency offenses.

Many violations in business are not crimes but regulatory offenses, for example under competition law or data protection law, or a failure to properly supervise a company (Section 130 OWiG). Companies can be fined in such cases (Section 30 OWiG), and some statutes set much higher maximum fines, up to ten percent of total turnover under competition law (Section 81c(2) GWB). An objection to a fine notice can be filed within two weeks of service (Section 67 OWiG); we represent individuals and companies in regulatory fine proceedings and in court.

Environmental offenses are governed by Sections 324 et seq. StGB. They include water pollution (Section 324 StGB), soil pollution (Section 324a StGB), air pollution (Section 325 StGB), unauthorized handling of waste (Section 326 StGB), and unauthorized operation of installations (Section 327 StGB). Criminal liability is often tied to official permits, conditions, and limit values, so proceedings are often strongly shaped by technical and administrative law issues. In some cases, negligence is already sufficient. Not only those acting on site but also plant managers, managing directors, and environmental officers can become the focus of investigations if they had duties to organize and supervise the operations. A corporate fine can also be imposed on the company (Sections 30 and 130 OWiG). In addition, there is a risk of confiscation of proceeds, official orders for remediation, and civil law claims.

We defend managers in companies and businesses from the first investigative measures, such as an inspection of the plant, sampling, or a search, through trial. We review the case file, examine the permit situation and expert reports, clarify responsibilities, and develop together with you a defense strategy that takes the interests of your company into account.

In Germany, cartel agreements are generally regulatory offenses (Section 81 GWB); bid rigging in tenders is a crime (Section 298 StGB). Competition offenses also include commercial bribery (Section 299 StGB), criminal advertising (Section 16 of the Act against Unfair Competition, UWG), and trade secret violations (Section 23 of the Trade Secrets Act, GeschGehG). In bid rigging cases, the competition authority and the public prosecutor often investigate in parallel, the authority regarding the fine against the company (Section 82(2) GWB) and the prosecutor regarding the individuals involved.

Directors’ and officers’ liability concerns the personal liability of managing directors and management board members to their company for breaches of duty (Section 43 GmbHG, Section 93 AktG). Such claims are often raised in connection with criminal allegations, such as breach of trust, corruption, or supervisory failures, or after an insolvency (Section 15b InsO). We advise managers and companies on how criminal proceedings and liability interact, including with regard to coverage under D&O insurance, and align the defense accordingly.

Export control and sanctions law covers violations of embargoes and EU sanctions and of licensing requirements for exports, for example for military equipment and for goods with both civilian and military uses (dual use goods). The central criminal provisions are Sections 17 and 18 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (AWG). The law in this area changes regularly; for example, criminal liability for sanctions violations was significantly expanded with effect from February 6, 2026. Companies face fines of up to 40 million euros for intentional violations of EU sanctions provisions under Section 18(1) AWG (Section 19(7) AWG).

Those affected are mainly exporters, manufacturers, traders, freight forwarders, and financial service providers, but also managing directors, board members, and employees in sales, logistics, and compliance. The proceedings are often characterized by complex facts, for example in the case of supply chains through third countries, the classification of goods in export lists, or the question of who is behind a business partner. Investigations are usually conducted by customs, in particular the Customs Criminal Investigation Office (Zollkriminalamt) and the customs investigation offices (Zollfahndungsämter), together with the public prosecutor. They often begin with searches, the seizure of business records and data, or the stopping of shipments of goods.

We advise companies preventively on sanctions rules, as described on the page Legal advice on criminal matters and internal investigations, and defend them when customs or the public prosecutor investigate.

In narcotics cases, we defend clients from the first contact with the police through trial and in appeal proceedings.

Narcotics law is characterized by high minimum sentences and broadly defined offenses. Proceedings often begin with searches, extensive covert investigative measures, or the analysis of communication data from “encryption software” such as Sky-ECC. In this field in particular, detailed knowledge is decisive, for example regarding the admissibility of communication data as evidence or the limits of covert investigative measures. We check whether each piece of evidence was obtained lawfully. An early, competent defense can render evidence inadmissible, narrow the allegations, and thus be decisive for the sentence and for detention.

Since 2024, cannabis has been governed by the Consumer Cannabis Act (Konsumcannabisgesetz) and the Medical Cannabis Act (Medizinal-Cannabisgesetz), each with its own criminal and regulatory fine provisions; prohibited trafficking still carries high minimum sentences, and investigations are still pursued with great intensity.

Beyond the scope of the Narcotic Drugs Act (Betäubungsmittelgesetz, BtMG), too, we defend clients against allegations of violating the Medicinal Products Act (Arzneimittelgesetz, AMG), for example by placing prohibited or falsified medicinal products on the market, or allegations involving doping substances under the Anti-Doping Act (AntiDopG), as well as in matters under the New Psychoactive Substances Act (Neue-psychoaktive-Stoffe-Gesetz, NpSG). Placing prohibited medicinal products on the market carries up to three years in prison or a fine under Section 95 AMG, and more in especially serious cases. The NpSG also makes trading in, manufacturing, and placing on the market new psychoactive substances a criminal offense. For medicinal products, criminal liability is often linked to distribution, for example via online platforms, gyms, or shipping across borders. The law covers not only placing on the market but also manufacturing, importing, and prescribing prohibited or unsafe medicinal products. An especially serious case exists, for example, if the health of a large number of people is endangered or if the offender acts out of gross selfishness. The penalty range is then one to ten years in prison (Section 95(3) AMG). Unlike under narcotics law, however, mere possession of medicinal products for personal use is generally not a criminal offense.

The Anti-Doping Act (AntiDopG) makes not only trafficking in doping substances a criminal offense, but also their manufacture, prescription, and supply for doping purposes (Section 4(1) AntiDopG). Elite athletes can also commit an offense if they themselves use or possess prohibited substances or methods in order to gain an advantage in competition (Section 4(1) no. 4 and (2) AntiDopG). This applies only to athletes who take part in organized sport and earn substantial income from this sporting activity. Physicians, coaches, and support staff often become the focus of investigations, for example on suspicion of having prescribed or passed on such substances. Higher penalties apply if the offender acts on a commercial basis or endangers the health of several people (Section 4(4) AntiDopG). In addition, sports law sanctions such as bans may be imposed. Because of these parallel proceedings, it can be important to coordinate the criminal proceedings and the sports federation proceedings.

The NpSG does not cover individual substances but entire groups of substances. In addition to trafficking, the Act also makes manufacturing them, placing them on the market, and transporting them across borders a criminal offense (Section 4 NpSG). Supplying minors is considered particularly serious, as is acting on a commercial basis. Those affected are often sellers of what are known as “legal highs,” “bath salts,” or “research chemicals,” where it is often difficult to determine whether a substance falls within a prohibited group of substances. Examining this and, where necessary, obtaining expert opinions on the composition is one of the most important tasks of the defense.

Sexual offense cases often center on situations in which it is one person’s word against another’s and the credibility of those involved is decisive. Even a suspicion can have serious personal, family, and professional consequences, such as the loss of one’s job, media coverage, or stigmatization in one’s social circle, long before a court has ruled. A measured defense based on the case file is therefore particularly important. Hasty reactions, such as making a statement to the police oneself or trying to contact the complainant, can permanently weaken the defense’s position.

The central provision is Section 177 StGB. Sexual acts against the discernible will of another person are a criminal offense (Section 177(1) StGB). The penalty range starts at six months in prison. In especially serious cases such as rape, the minimum sentence is two years (Section 177(1) and (6) StGB). Other allegations concern, for example, the sexual abuse of children and juveniles (Sections 176 et seq. StGB), the abuse of persons entrusted to one’s care (Section 174 StGB), sexual harassment (Section 184i StGB), or child and juvenile pornographic content (Sections 184b and 184c StGB). Especially where allegations relate to pornographic content, proceedings often begin with a search and the seizure of mobile phones, computers, and storage media.

Suspects do not have to comment on the allegations (Section 136(1) sentence 2 StPO). Before any statement is made, defense counsel should inspect the case file (Section 147 StPO). Only the file shows what exactly the complainant has stated, what further evidence exists, and how robust the allegations are. On this basis, it can be decided whether a statement makes sense, whether it is possible to work toward a dismissal of the proceedings, or whether silence is the better strategy.

Especially when it is one person’s word against another’s, what matters is how the statements came about and how consistent they are. The courts must evaluate the testimony of the prosecution witness with particular care and take into account all circumstances that speak for or against its credibility. These include the details and internal consistency of the account, discrepancies between earlier and later statements, the question of how and in what setting the first statement came about, and possible motives for a false accusation. Added to this are chat histories, messages, expert reports, and statements by persons in whom those concerned confided. An expert opinion on the psychology of testimony is often obtained. The defense critically examines its methodological basis and can file its own motions to take evidence.

To protect those involved, the public is often excluded (Section 171b GVG). Aggrieved persons can assert their rights as private accessory prosecutors and be represented by a lawyer. The defense must prepare for this, for example in how it structures the questioning. In special cases, questioning by video may also be considered. Depending on the circumstances of the case, the right goal may be a dismissal for lack of sufficient suspicion (Section 170(2) StPO), an acquittal, or an appropriate negotiated agreement.

Regardless of the outcome of the proceedings, the consequences must also be considered. A conviction can lead to entries in the certificate of good conduct, to consequences under professional law, civil service law, or immigration law, and to an activity ban or occupational ban. We therefore also advise on these consequences from the outset so that they are taken into account in the defense strategy. With allegations relating to the past, it must also be borne in mind that for certain offenses the limitation period can be suspended for a long time.

In traffic cases, we defend clients against allegations such as driving under the influence (Section 316 StGB), endangering road traffic (Section 315c StGB), leaving the scene of an accident (Section 142 StGB, “hit and run”), or negligent bodily injury after an accident (Section 229 StGB). Allegations relating to drugs in road traffic and coercion in road traffic are also among the typical cases, as are regulatory fine proceedings for less serious violations, which can nevertheless have serious consequences as well, especially in the case of repeat violations.

Beyond the sentence, the driver’s license is often at stake. The court can revoke it and impose a disqualification period of six months to five years, or even permanently in exceptional cases (Sections 69 and 69a StGB). Alternatively, a driving ban of up to six months may be imposed (Section 44 StGB). A judge can provisionally revoke the license even during the investigation (Section 111a StPO). For professional drivers, field sales staff, and anyone who depends on their driver’s license for work, this can have consequences that threaten their livelihood. In addition, there may be entries in the driving aptitude register, effects on insurance coverage and recourse claims, and, after a revocation, an order for a medical and psychological assessment (MPU) before a new license is issued. Anyone confronted with a criminal allegation after a traffic accident or a police check should seek legal advice before making any statement to the police.

Proceedings before professional chambers and disciplinary courts, for example against lawyers, physicians, tax advisors, or auditors, and disciplinary proceedings against civil servants are described on the page Disciplinary proceedings.