Aggravated criminal damage to property

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of § 126 of the Criminal Code initially requires criminal damage to property within the meaning of § 125 of the Criminal Code, i.e. a deliberate impairment of someone else’s property, which adversely alters its condition or fitness for use. However, aggravated criminal damage to property only exists if a legally defined qualifying circumstance is also realized.

These qualifying circumstances include, in particular, damage to religiously dedicated objects, graves or memorial sites, public monuments or listed objects, as well as items of scientific, folkloric, artistic or historical value, provided they are located in publicly accessible places. Interventions in essential components of critical infrastructure, such as utilities or security-relevant systems, are also qualified.

Aggravated criminal damage to property also exists if the act causes damage of more than €5,000. In the case of particularly high damage from €300,000, the law speaks of an even more serious form of criminal damage to property, which triggers a correspondingly higher penalty. § 126 of the Criminal Code thus protects both the integrity of particularly important items and the considerable economic interest in their preservation.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the offense can be any person who is criminally responsible who impairs someone else’s property and thereby realizes one of the qualifying circumstances. The person of the perpetrator is irrelevant; what is decisive is the objective significance of the item or the amount of damage caused.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is any physical item belonging to someone else that is subject to increased protection either because of its religious, cultural, historical, scientific or social significance or because its damage causes significant economic damage. This includes religiously used objects, graves, publicly accessible monuments or collectibles, listed objects, culturally or scientifically valuable objects, as well as systems or components that are essential for the critical infrastructure. Also included are all items whose damage causes damage of over €5,000 or over €300,000.

Act:

The act corresponds to that of § 125 of the Criminal Code and includes any behavior that worsens the condition of someone else’s property. This includes destroying, damaging, defacing or rendering unusable. For § 126 of the Criminal Code, this act must additionally fulfill one of the qualifying requirements described above, i.e. either affect a particularly protected item or cause significant damage.

Result of the Offense:

The result of the act consists on the one hand in the impairment of the item itself and on the other hand in the realization of the qualifying circumstance. This means that the item must objectively suffer a disadvantage, and this disadvantage must either affect a particularly protected item or exceed a legally defined minimum damage. In the case of damage over €5,000, there is aggravated criminal damage to property; in the case of damage over €300,000, it is the particularly serious form according to paragraph 2.

Aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code exists if criminal damage to property under § 125 of the Criminal Code is committed under circumstances that the legislator classifies as particularly significant or consequential. The offense requires that someone else’s property is intentionally impaired in its existence or function and at the same time a qualifying characteristic is fulfilled, because the affected item is assigned to a special protection area or the damage caused exceeds a legal value limit. The qualification clearly distinguishes the act from the basic offense and leads to a noticeably stricter penalty.

Causality:

The result of the act must have been caused by the perpetrator’s behavior. Without the act, neither the damage nor the qualifying circumstance would have occurred.

Objective Attribution:

The result is objectively attributable if the risk that § 126 of the Criminal Code is intended to prevent is realized: the damage to particularly protected or particularly valuable items or the causing of significant economic damage. Atypical or completely independent causes are not attributable.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The offense of aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code covers cases in which someone else’s property is intentionally destroyed, damaged, defaced or rendered unusable and a qualifying circumstance also exists. The focus remains on the impairment of the condition or function of an item, but in an area that receives a higher criminal weight because of its special protection or significant damage consequences. The injustice thus arises both from the encroachment on someone else’s property and from the increased importance of the object concerned or the exceptional amount of damage.

• § 129 of the Criminal Code – Theft by burglary or with weapons:Theft by burglary or with weapons protects someone else’s assets from the removal of an item. While § 126 of the Criminal Code covers the deterioration or destruction of the item, § 129 of the Criminal Code concerns the removal, i.e. the withdrawal of possession. The distinction is made according to the object of attack: In the case of aggravated criminal damage to property, the condition or value of an item is impaired; the entitled party remains the owner in principle. In the case of theft, the entitled party loses the item itself. If damage and removal coincide, the offenses exist side by side.
• § 125 of the Criminal Code – Criminal damage to property: § 125 of the Criminal Code forms the basic offense and covers any intentional impairment of someone else’s property, regardless of value, significance or location. § 126 of the Criminal Code necessarily requires such criminal damage to property, but extends it to include qualifying circumstances that make the act objectively more serious, for example because the damaged item has religious, historical or cultural significance or because the damage caused exceeds a legal value limit. The distinction is therefore made exclusively via the additional objective qualification content. If this is not present, it remains at § 125 of the Criminal Code. However, if this is present, it is aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if further independent property or ownership offenses are added to the aggravated criminal damage to property, such as theft, trespassing, dangerous threats or burglary. The damage to an item remains an independent content of injustice and is not suppressed. If several legal interests violations are realized, the offenses regularly exist side by side.

Spurious Concurrence:

Suppression due to specificity only comes into consideration if another offense completely covers the entire content of injustice. This is rarely the case, but can become relevant in the case of offenses whose focus is expressly on the destruction or rendering unusable of certain objects.

Conversely, § 126 of the Criminal Code itself unfolds specificity compared to § 125 of the Criminal Code if a qualifying circumstance exists and the act thereby falls into the higher protection area.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several aggravated criminal damage to property are committed independently, for example if different protected objects are damaged or interventions are made at different times. Each intentional damage forms a own act, provided that there is no natural unit of action.

Continued Action:

A uniform act can be assumed if repeated damage is directly related and follows a uniform intent, for example if several valuable or particularly protected objects are damaged one after the other. The act ends as soon as no further interventions occur or the perpetrator abandons his intent.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused destroyed, damaged, defaced or rendered unusable someone else’s property. The decisive factor is the proof of an actual intervention in the physical substance or functionality of the item. It is not about evaluations of the severity of the damage, but about the objective circumstance that the item has been impaired in its condition or usability.

In the case of aggravated criminal damage to property, it must also be proven that a special circumstance existed, for example that the item was something special or particularly protected or that a high amount of damage was caused.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a property damage act was actually committed,
• the item was someone else’s, i.e. not exclusively owned by the accused,
• an objective impairment of the substance, functionality or external appearance exists,
• the damage or rendering unusable is causally related to the behavior of the accused.
• an additional special circumstance existed, for example a particularly protected object or damage above the legal limit of €5,000 or €300,000 (paragraph 2).

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged damage is objectively ascertainable, for example through traces, witnesses or technical reports.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, an impairment of the item has occurred. The focus is on the question of whether the item was actually damaged or rendered unusable and whether the intervention can be attributed to the accused.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• Type and extent of the damage,
• Condition of the item before and after the intervention,
• comprehensible technical or optical changes,
• Witness statements on the course of events and the involvement of the accused,
• Expert opinions or documentations that objectively prove the damage,
• whether a reasonable average person would regard the change as an impairment of the value or function of the item.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere trivialities, usual signs of wear and tear or changes without intervention character, which do not constitute a property damage within the meaning of the offense.

Accused Person:

The accused person bears no burden of proof. However, they can raise justified doubts, particularly regarding

• whether damage actually occurred,
• whether the item was already pre-existing or pre-damaged,
• whether the behavior has caused no impairment of substance or function,
• Contradictions or missing evidence in the presentation of the damage,
• alternative causes that could also plausibly explain the damage.

They can also demonstrate that certain measures were mere preparatory actions, nursing assistance without the character of an intervention, or occurred with the consent of the affected person.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of § 126 of the Criminal Code:

• Photos or videos of the damage, preferably before-after comparison,
• Expert opinions on cause, damage and repair costs,
• Witness statements on the course of the crime and the condition of the item,
• Repair invoices, cost estimates or technical documentations,
• Communication records from which motive, conflicts or processes can be seen,
• Chronologies that show when the damage occurred and who had access to the item.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Damage to a high-quality object with considerable damage: The perpetrator causes a clear impairment of the substance and function of a top-class vehicle through scratches and dents. He assumes that it is a mere cosmetic defect and that the damage is minor. In fact, an expert opinion reveals repair costs of over €5,000. The owner had not given his consent, and the perpetrator could easily have assessed the value of the vehicle. The high amount of damage means that not only is there criminal damage to property, but the aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code is fulfilled due to the value qualification. The lack of consent and the considerable effort required for restoration clearly show the violation of the foreign property right.
• Damage to a listed object despite recognizable protection: The perpetrator sprays paint on a publicly erected monument, although it is obvious that it is a historically significant and officially protected object. He mistakenly assumes that the paint can be easily removed or that the monument is “not important enough” to cause damage. In fact, the damage leads to a change in the surface that can only be reversed by a special conservation treatment. The entitled party cannot intervene because the damage has already occurred. The recognizable special significance of the monument leads directly to the qualification of § 126 of the Criminal Code, regardless of whether there is a high economic damage.

These examples show that aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code exists if the damaged item either has high economic damage or is particularly protected and the perpetrator nevertheless intervenes without consent and causes an objective impairment.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code requires intent. The perpetrator must know that he is damaging, destroying, defacing or rendering unusable someone else’s property and that this intervention is objectively suitable to impair the condition or usability of the item. In addition, he must at least understand that a special circumstance exists that makes the act aggravated criminal damage to property, for example that the item is particularly protected or that his behavior can cause significant damage.

The perpetrator must therefore understand that his behavior as a whole constitutes a targeted intervention in someone else’s property and is typically suitable to impair its condition or function. For the qualification, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the special circumstances of the item or the possibility of high damage and accepts this consequence. A further intention is not required; conditional intent is sufficient.

There is no subjective element if the perpetrator seriously believes that he is entitled to change or treat the item, that the intervention is desired by the entitled party or that the act is objectively necessary to avert danger. Anyone who assumes that they are acting lawfully or mistakenly assumes consent does not meet the requirements of § 126 of the Criminal Code.

Ultimately, anyone who knows and consciously aims to worsen the condition of someone else’s property or impair its usability acts intentionally, and at the same time at least tacitly accepts the special circumstances that qualify the act as aggravated criminal damage to property.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Culpability and mistakes

Mistake of prohibition:

A mistake of prohibition only excuses if it was unavoidable. Anyone who engages in conduct that recognizably interferes with the rights of others cannot claim that they did not recognize the illegality. Everyone is obliged to inform themselves about the legal limits of their actions. Mere ignorance or a reckless error does not absolve one of responsibility.

Principle of culpability:

Only those who act culpably are punishable. Intentional offenses require that the perpetrator recognizes the essential events and at least accepts them as a possibility. If this intent is lacking, for example, because the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that their behavior is permitted or is voluntarily supported, at most negligence exists. This is not sufficient for intentional offenses.

Incapacity to be held accountable:

No guilt is attributed to someone who, at the time of the offense, was unable to recognize the injustice of their actions or to act in accordance with this insight due to a severe mental disorder, a pathological mental impairment, or a significant inability to control their actions. In case of corresponding doubts, a psychiatric assessment will be obtained.

Excusable state of necessity:

An excusable state of necessity may exist if the perpetrator acts in an extreme situation of duress in order to avert an acute danger to their own life or the lives of others. The behavior remains unlawful but can have a mitigating or excusing effect if there was no other way out.

Putative self-defense:

Anyone who mistakenly believes that they are entitled to an act of defense acts without intent if the error was serious and comprehensible. Such an error can reduce or exclude guilt. However, if a breach of duty of care remains, a negligent or mitigating assessment comes into consideration, but not a justification.

Extinction of punishment and diversion

Diversion:

A diversion is not excluded in the case of aggravated criminal damage to property pursuant to § 126 of the Criminal Code, but is significantly restricted. The offense concerns either particularly protected items or significant amounts of damage, which regularly indicates a higher injustice and an increased responsibility of the perpetrator.

In cases in which the qualifying circumstance is only just reached, the perpetrator is immediately insightful and the consequences can be quickly compensated, a diversion can still be examined. However, the stronger the special protection of the object or the amount of damage incurred, the more unlikely a diversionary approach becomes.

Diversion may be considered if

• the guilt is low,
• the qualifying circumstance is not particularly serious, for example just over €5,000 damage,
• no serious consequential effects have occurred,
• no planned or repeated behavior exists,
• the facts are clear and manageable,
• and the perpetrator is insightful, cooperative, and willing to make amends.

If a diversion comes into consideration, the court can order monetary payments, community service, supervision instructions or a victim-offender mediation. A diversion leads to no conviction and no criminal record entry.

Exclusion of Diversion:

Diversion is excluded if

• a significant or sustainable impairment of a particularly protected item has occurred,
• the damage was inflicted deliberately, purposefully, or systematically,
• several particularly protected objects were affected,
• repeated or systematic behavior exists,
• religious, cultural or listed objects are affected,
• the damage had qualified consequences, such as high repair costs or significant economic disadvantages,
• or the overall conduct constitutes a serious violation of property rights.

Only in the case of clearly the slightest guilt and immediate insight can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary approach is permissible. In practice, diversion is possible in the case of § 126 of the Criminal Code, but rare due to the typical severity of the offense.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court determines the penalty based on the extent of the damage, the nature, duration, and intensity of the interference with the property, as well as how severely the destruction, damage, disfigurement, or rendering unusable has impaired the value or functionality of the affected property. Decisive factors are whether the perpetrator acted repeatedly, purposefully, or systematically over a longer period and whether the conduct caused a noticeable impairment of property.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the damage was continued over a longer period,
• there was systematic or particularly persistent conduct,
• significant property damage occurred,
• particularly vulnerable or valuable items were affected,
• damage continued despite clear warnings or requests to cease,
• a special breach of trust occurred, for example, in cases of damage within a close or dependent relationship,
• or relevant prior convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• Impeccability,
• a full confession and recognizable insight,
• an immediate cessation of the damaging conduct,
• active reparative efforts or damage settlement,
• special stress or overwhelming situations for the perpetrator,
• or an excessively long duration of proceedings.

The court may conditionally suspend a prison sentence if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis.

Penalty Range

Aggravated criminal damage to property knows two different penalties. What is decisive is which special circumstance fulfills the offense.

If the damage affects a particularly protected item such as a monument, a grave, a religiously dedicated object, a scientifically or culturally valuable piece or a part of the critical infrastructure or if the act causes damage of more than €5,000, a imprisonment of up to two years is threatened. There is no minimum penalty here. The court can assess the penalty within this framework according to the circumstances of the individual case.

If the act leads to an exceptionally high level of damage of more than €300,000, a significantly stricter penalty framework applies. In these cases, the prison sentence is at least six months and no more than five years. The law assumes a particularly serious economic impairment here, which is why a minimum sentence is mandatory.

Circumstances such as a subsequent apology, the attempt to make amends, or the voluntary termination of the damaging behavior do not change the statutory penalty framework. Such factors are taken into account exclusively within the framework of sentencing.

Criminal liability only ceases if a justification applies, such as self-defense or the lawful exercise of a right of possession. In such cases, the penalty framework is not applied in the first place because the act is legally not reprehensible.

Monetary Penalty – Day-fine System

Austrian criminal law calculates monetary penalties according to the day-fine system. The number of day-fines depends on the guilt, the amount per day depends on the financial capacity. In this way, the penalty is adapted to the personal circumstances and yet remains noticeable.

• Range: up to 720 daily rates – at least €4, maximum €5,000 per day.
• Practical formula: Approximately 6 months imprisonment corresponds to around 360 day-fines. This conversion serves only as orientation and is not a rigid scheme.
• In case of non-payment: The court can impose a substitute custodial sentence. As a rule, the following applies: 1 day of substitute custodial sentence corresponds to 2 day-fines.

Note:

In the case of serious damage to property, a fine is only considered in exceptional cases, for example, if the qualifying circumstance is only slightly pronounced and the damage has been quickly compensated.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

Section 37 of the Criminal Code (StGB): If the statutory penalty threat extends up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short prison sentence of no more than one year. This possibility therefore also exists in the case of serious damage to property.
In practice, however, Section 37 StGB is applied more cautiously in the case of Section 126 StGB because the offense either covers particularly protected objects or significant damage has occurred. An application is primarily considered if the qualifying circumstance is only just met, the damage has been quickly compensated, and there is no relevant prior conviction.

Section 43 StGB: A prison sentence can be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and the offender has a positive social prognosis. This possibility also exists in the case of serious damage to property.
Conditional remission is granted more cautiously if particularly vulnerable items were affected, if there is significant material damage, or if the behavior was deliberate, malicious, or repeated. A conditional remission is realistic above all if the damage has been fully compensated, the perpetrator is insightful, and the qualification is at the lower end.

Section 43a StGB: Partial conditional remission allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally suspended parts of the sentence. It is possible for sentences over six months and up to two years.
In the case of serious damage to property, Section 43a StGB can therefore be of practical significance, in particular if the sentence commensurate with the guilt lies between six months and two years due to the amount of damage or the special protection required. In particularly serious cases with sentences of more than two years, for example in the case of damage of more than €300,000, Section 43a StGB is not applicable.

Sections 50 to 52 StGB: The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance. These often concern compensation for damages, the avoidance of further conflicts, or programmatic measures such as behavioral training. The aim is to compensate for the damage incurred and to ensure that the perpetrator refrains from similar actions in the future.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

Due to the higher penalty threat, the Regional Court as a single judge is generally responsible for serious damage to property. According to the statutory rule, offenses with a possible prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of comparable magnitude fall within the first-instance jurisdiction of the District Courts.

However, since serious damage to property provides for a significantly higher penalty framework, there is reason to involve the Regional Court as a single judge. A lay judge court is not an option because a significantly higher penalty threat would have to be provided for this.

A jury court is not an option, as no particularly severe penalties are available in this area of offenses.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of damage is competent. The decisive factor is where the property was actually destroyed, damaged, or rendered unusable.

If the place of the offense cannot be clearly determined, the jurisdiction is based on

• the residence of the accused person,
• the place of arrest,
• or the seat of the competent public prosecutor’s office.

The proceedings are conducted where a practical and orderly implementation is best guaranteed.

Hierarchy of Courts

Appeals against judgments of the Regional Court as a single judge can be lodged with the Regional Court or the Higher Regional Court, depending on the type of appeal. The Regional Court decides as a court of appeal on guilt, sentence, and costs.

Decisions of the Regional Court can subsequently be challenged by appeal for nullity or a further appeal before the Supreme Court, provided that the legal requirements are met.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of serious damage to property, the injured party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since the offense constitutes an encroachment on the ownership or usability of an item, the claims relate in particular to repair costs, replacement costs, reduction in value, cleaning costs, loss of use, as well as other pecuniary damages caused by the damage.
Depending on the case, significant consequential costs can also be claimed, in particular if a particularly protected item was affected or high economic damage has occurred.

The private party connection suspends the statute of limitations for all claims asserted as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. The limitation period only continues after a legally binding conclusion, insofar as the damage has not been fully awarded.

Voluntary compensation, such as the assumption of repair costs, a complete settlement of damages, or a credible effort to compensate, can have a mitigating effect on the sentence, provided that it is carried out in a timely and complete manner.

However, if the perpetrator acted systematically, repeatedly, or in a way that led to a significant amount of damage or to the damage of a particularly vulnerable item, a subsequent compensation for damages usually loses a large part of its mitigating effect.
In such constellations, a subsequent settlement only partially compensates for the injustice of the act.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Overview of criminal proceedings

Commencement of Investigation

Criminal proceedings require a concrete suspicion from which a person is considered an accused and can claim all rights of the accused. Since serious damage to property is an ex officio offense, the police and the public prosecutor’s office initiate the proceedings ex officio as soon as there is a corresponding suspicion. A special declaration by the injured party is not required for this.

Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office

The public prosecutor conducts the preliminary investigation and determines the further course of action. The criminal police carry out the necessary investigations, secure evidence, take witness statements, and document the damage. Ultimately, the public prosecutor decides on discontinuation, diversion, or indictment, depending on the degree of culpability, the amount of damage, and the evidence.

Interrogation of the Accused

Before each interrogation, the accused person receives full instruction on their rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. If the accused requests legal counsel, the interrogation must be postponed. The formal interrogation of the accused serves to confront them with the accusation and to provide an opportunity for a statement.

Access to files

Access to files can be obtained from the police, public prosecutor, or court. It also includes items of evidence, provided that the purpose of the investigation is not thereby jeopardized. The private claimant’s joinder is governed by the general rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allows the injured party to assert claims for damages directly in criminal proceedings.

Main Hearing

The main hearing serves for oral evidence taking, legal assessment, and decision-making on any civil law claims. The court particularly examines the course of events, intent, amount of damage, and the credibility of statements. The proceedings conclude with a conviction, acquittal, or diversionary resolution.

Rights of the accused

• Information & defense: right to notification, legal aid, free choice of defense counsel, translation assistance, and submission of evidence motions.
• Silence & counsel: right to remain silent at any time; if a defense attorney is requested, the interrogation must be postponed.
• Duty to inform: prompt notification of suspicion and rights; exceptions only permitted to safeguard the purpose of the investigation.
• Practical access to files: investigation and trial records; access by third parties is restricted to protect the accused.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical guidance and behavioural advice

1. Maintain silence.
   A brief statement is sufficient: “I am exercising my right to remain silent and will first speak with my defense counsel.”
   This right applies from the very first interrogation by the police or the public prosecutor.
2. Contact defense counsel immediately.
   No statement should be made without access to the investigation files. Only after reviewing the files can the defense assess which strategy and evidence preservation measures are appropriate.
3. Secure evidence immediately.
   You should secure all available documents, messages, photos, videos, and other records as early as possible and keep copies. Digital data must be regularly backed up and protected from subsequent changes. Note down important individuals as potential witnesses and promptly record the sequence of events in a memorandum.
4. Do not contact the opposing party.
   Your own messages, calls, or posts may be used as evidence against you. All communication should take place exclusively through your defense counsel.
5. Secure video and data recordings in time.
   Surveillance videos from public transport, venues, or property management systems are often automatically deleted after only a few days. Requests for data preservation must therefore be submitted immediately to the operators, the police, or the public prosecutor’s office.
6. Document searches and seizures.
   In cases of house searches or seizures, you should request a copy of the warrant or record. Note the date, time, persons involved, and all items taken.
7. In case of arrest: make no statements about the matter.
   Insist on immediate notification of your defense counsel. Pre-trial detention may only be imposed if there is strong suspicion of guilt and an additional ground for detention. Less severe measures (e.g., pledge, reporting duty, contact ban) must take precedence.
8. Prepare reparation strategically.
   Payments, symbolic gestures, apologies, or other compensatory offers should be handled and documented exclusively through the defense. Structured reparation can positively influence diversion and sentencing.

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

Serious damage to property under Section 126 StGB concerns encroachments on third-party property that either affect particularly protected objects or cause significant damage exceeding €5,000. The legal assessment depends heavily on the amount of damage, the vulnerability of the item, the intent, and the evidence situation. Small deviations in the facts can decide here on indictment, diversion, or acquittal.

Early legal support ensures that evidence is properly secured, the damage is correctly determined, and exculpatory circumstances are processed in a legally usable manner. A precise legal analysis is crucial, especially in the case of high amounts of damage or particularly protected objects.

Our law firm

• carefully examines whether there is actually qualified serious damage to property and whether the alleged damage or the special protection required is legally sustainable.
• analyzes the evidence, in particular intent, alternative sequences, technical reports, and possible gaps in the evidence.
• protects against one-sided or excessive representations by critically questioning the assessment of the damage and the involvement in the act.
• develops a clear defense strategy that fully captures the actual sequence of events and classifies it legally accurately.

As a representation specializing in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation of serious damage to property is examined thoroughly, objectively, and without legal errors and that the proceedings are conducted on a solid factual basis.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation