Aggravated robbery

According to § 143 StGB, aggravated robbery exists if the basic offense of robbery under § 142 StGB is qualified by particularly dangerous circumstances. This is particularly the case if the perpetrator uses a weapon during the act or inflicts serious bodily harm on the victim.

The attack on property is associated with a significantly increased violence or danger component. The increased injustice of aggravated robbery arises from the increased intensity of the attack on the victim’s life, limb or physical integrity and justifies a significantly stricter criminal assessment. Even in the case of aggravated robbery, the short-term acquisition of actual control over the object is sufficient.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of the offense covers exclusively the externally perceptible event. The only thing that is decisive is what could be determined by a neutral observation, such as a camera: concrete actions, procedures, means used and consequences that have occurred. Internal processes such as intent, motives or intentions are not taken into account and do not belong to the objective element of the offense.

The objective element of aggravated robbery initially requires that all the characteristics of the basic offense under § 142 StGB are met. Therefore, the taking away or extortion of a movable object belonging to another person is required by use of force against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb. The crucial point is that the perpetrator does not merely obtain the item, but takes it or has it procured under direct personal coercion.

Taking away exists if the perpetrator deprives the entitled party of actual control over the object and establishes new control over the object himself or through a third party. Extortion exists if the victim himself takes an action as a result of the violence or threat, through which the perpetrator receives the item. In both variants, it is decisive that the item comes under duress into the sphere of control of the perpetrator.

The means of the crime must be directed against a person. Violence must have a physical effect or aim directly at breaking the victim’s resistance. The threat must relate to an imminent danger to life or limb and be capable of causing justified fear in the victim. The coercion must be functionally linked to the taking away or extortion and enable or secure it.

The objective element of the offense is already fulfilled if the perpetrator gains even only short-term actual control over the object. Permanent possession, later use or economic benefit are not required. The focus of the injustice lies in the combination of interference with property and an immediate situation of violence or threat.

Qualifying circumstances

Beyond the basic offense, § 143 StGB requires additional objective qualification characteristics that significantly increase the injustice of the offense.

A aggravated robbery according to § 143 para. 1 StGB exists objectively if

• the perpetrator commits the robbery using a weapon or
• acts as a member of a criminal organization with the participation of another member.

The use of a weapon requires that an object is used which, by its nature, is suitable for inflicting significant injuries, and that this object is functionally used in the crime to apply violence or threats. The participation within a criminal organization requires a coordinated cooperation of several members within the framework of a structure designed for a longer period of time.

According to § 143 para. 2 StGB a further objective qualification exists if the violence exerted leads to serious consequences of the crime. The decisive factor here is the consequences that have actually occurred, not just the dangerousness of the procedure.

Covered in particular are

• serious bodily harm,
• bodily harm with serious permanent consequences or
• the death of a person.

These consequences must be causally attributable to the use of force in the context of the robbery.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the crime can be any person who is criminally responsible. No special personal characteristics are required.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the crime is a movable object belonging to another person with asset value, which is not the sole property of the perpetrator and can actually be taken away or extorted.

Act:

The act consists of the taking away or extortion of the item using force or qualified threat, supplemented by the qualifying circumstances of § 143 StGB such as use of weapons, participation within a criminal organization or serious consequences of the crime.

Result of the Offense:

The success of the crime lies in the acquisition of actual control over the object by the perpetrator and the loss of control over the object by the entitled party. Short-term control is sufficient.

Causality:

The taking away or extortion must be causally attributable to the violence or threat. Without the coercion, the interference with property would not have occurred.

Objective Attribution:

The success is objectively attributable if exactly that risk is realized that the offense of aggravated robbery is intended to prevent, namely that foreign assets are withdrawn by direct violence, use of weapons or existential threat to a person.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The offense of robbery covers cases in which a movable object belonging to another person is taken away or extorted by violence against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb. The focus of the injustice lies in the functional link between a property offense and direct personal coercion. The decisive factor is not only the deprivation of assets, but the concrete endangerment of the physical integrity of the victim at the time of the taking away or extortion.

• § 131 StGB – Robbery-related theft: The delimitation is based on the time of the use of force. In the case of robbery, the perpetrator uses violence or qualified threat already to obtain the item. In the case of robbery-related theft, the perpetrator initially commits a theft without violence and applies violence only after the taking away has been completed or threatens with imminent danger to life or limb in order to obtain, secure the loot or enable the escape.
• § 144 StGB – Extortion: The extortion differs from robbery by the point of attack of the crime. While in the case of robbery the movable object belonging to another person is obtained directly under duress, the extortion is directed at an action, toleration or omission of the victim, through which the financial disadvantage is only brought about. The damage arises indirectly through the behavior of the coerced person, not through a direct access of the perpetrator to the thing.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if further independent offenses are added to the aggravated robbery, such as property damage, bodily harm, trespassing or dangerous threat. The aggravated robbery retains its independent content of injustice, as different legal interests are violated. The offenses stand side by side, provided that no displacement occurs.

Spurious Concurrence:

A displacement due to specialty comes into consideration if another element of the offense completely covers the entire content of injustice of the aggravated robbery. This is particularly the case in cases in which the increased potential for violence or the serious consequences of the crime constitute a qualitatively increased form of appearance. In these cases, the basic offense recedes.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several robbery acts are committed independently, such as in the case of temporally separated attacks or with different objects of the crime. Each act forms its own criminal unit, provided that there is no natural unit of action.

Continued Action:

A uniform act can be assumed if several acts of coercion and deprivation of property are directly related and are supported by a uniform intent, such as in the case of several accesses within the same plan of action. The act ends as soon as no further acts of coercion 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 has committed a robbery and that the qualifying requirements of § 143 StGB are also met. The decisive factor is initially the proof that the entitled party a movable object belonging to another person under use of force against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb was taken away or extorted. The decisive factor is not only the deprivation of assets, but in particular the direct coercion on a person in connection with the acquisition of the item.

In addition, it must be proven that qualifying circumstances of aggravated robbery have been realized, such as the use of a weapon, the participation of several perpetrators within the framework of a criminal organization or the occurrence of serious consequences of the crime.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a taking away or extortion actually took place,
• the object belonged to someone else, i.e., was not exclusively owned by the accused,
• violence against a person or a qualified threat was used,
• the coercion was functionally linked to the acquisition of the item,
• the entitled party has consequently lost actual control over the item,
• the accused himself or through a third party has established new custody, even if this was only for a short time,
• the interference with property is causally attributable to the violence or threat,
• additionally a qualification characteristic of § 143 StGB exists, such as use of weapons, organized commission of the crime or serious injury consequences.

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged use of force, threat, taking away and the respective qualification characteristic are objectively ascertainable.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, a robbery with qualifying circumstances of § 143 StGB exists. The focus is on the question of whether violence or threat directed against a person was used, whether this was causal and functional for the deprivation of assets and whether the accused thereby actual control over the item has obtained.

In addition, the court examines whether the aggravating circumstances of aggravated robbery were actually realized and are objectively attributable to the accused.

In doing so, the court takes into account in particular

• type, intensity and course of the use of force or threat,
• temporal connection between coercion and deprivation of assets,
• custody relationships before and after the incident,
• type and manner of use of an alleged weapon or dangerous instrument,
• participation of other perpetrators and their cooperation,
• type and severity of injuries or consequences of the crime that have occurred,
• witness statements on the course of the act and the participation of the accused,
• Video recordings, medical documentation or other objective evidence,
• circumstances that suggest an imminent danger to life or limb,
• whether a reasonable average person would assume a coercion-induced surrender or taking away under increased endangerment.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere intimidation without coercive quality, purely verbal conflicts, simple forms of robbery without qualification and situations in which the aggravating conditions of § 143 StGB are not demonstrable.

Accused Person:

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

• whether violence or a qualified threat was actually used,
• whether the coercion constituted an imminent danger to life or limb,
• whether there was a causal connection between coercion and deprivation of assets,
• whether the object was handed over voluntarily,
• whether there was only a threat without sufficient intensity,
• whether actual control over the object was established at all,
• whether an alleged qualification characteristic, such as use of weapons or serious injury, actually exists or is attributable,
• contradictions or gaps in the presentation of the course of the act,
• alternative courses of events that could explain the loss of property differently.

She can also argue that actions were misunderstood, situation-dependent or without qualified coercive character or that the requirements of aggravated robbery are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is of particular importance in the case of § 143 StGB:

• Witness statements on the course of the violence or threat situation,
• Video recordings or photos from public or private areas,
• medical findings, injury and long-term documentation,
• seizure and examination of weapons or dangerous instruments,
• Crime scene traces and seizures,
• Communication records before or after the crime,
• temporal sequences that prove the connection between coercion, deprivation of assets and qualifying consequence.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Taking away a wallet using a weapon: The perpetrator stands in the way of a person at night in an underground car park, pulls out a knife and holds it visibly in the direction of the victim’s upper body. He demands the immediate surrender of the wallet and announces that he will stab if there is resistance. Fearing serious injury, the victim hands over the wallet with cash and identification documents. The perpetrator thereby gains new actual control over the movable object belonging to another person. The decisive factor is that the taking away does not only take place under threat of imminent danger to life or limb, but also using a weapon. This not only fulfills the element of robbery, but also the qualification of aggravated robbery.
• Taking with the use of force resulting in serious injury: In the course of a robbery, the perpetrator repeatedly punches a victim in the face, causing them to fall to the ground and sustain a serious injury. While the victim is lying on the ground dazed, the perpetrator takes their bag and flees. The deprivation of assets is directly related to the violence previously used. It is essential that the use of force not only serves the purpose of the taking but also leads to serious bodily injury. This constitutes a particularly qualified form of aggravated robbery.

These examples illustrate that in aggravated robbery, circumstances are added beyond the basic offense that significantly increase the potential for violence or endangerment or lead to serious consequences of the crime. The focus of the injustice lies not solely in the deprivation of assets, but in the particularly intensive endangerment of the victim’s life or limb or in the serious consequences of the use of force.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of aggravated robbery requires intent with regard to all objective elements of the robbery. The perpetrator must know that by using force against a person or by threatening imminent danger to life or limb, they are taking or extorting a movable object belonging to another and depriving the entitled party of actual control over the object.

For intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the possibility of force or qualified threat as well as the taking or extortion and accepts it. Conditional intent is sufficient. The intent must also relate to the fact that the use of coercion is functionally linked to the deprivation of assets.

In addition, aggravated robbery requires an intent to enrich oneself. The perpetrator must at least tacitly accept obtaining an unlawful financial advantage for themselves or a third party through the appropriation of the item.

Beim § 143 Abs. 1 StGB the intent must also relate to the qualifying element of the offense, such as the use of a weapon or participation within a criminal organization.

Bei den schweren Tatfolgen nach § 143 Abs. 2 StGB is no intent required with regard to the consequence of the injury. It is sufficient that the perpetrator commits the robbery intentionally and the serious consequence is attributable to them through negligence.

There is no subjective element if the perpetrator seriously assumes they are entitled, assumes a voluntary surrender without coercion, or has no intent with regard to the qualifying circumstances.

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 excluded in the case of aggravated robbery pursuant to § 143 StGB. The offense requires qualified use of force, the use of a weapon, organized commission of the offense, or serious consequences of the offense, and thus exhibits a particularly high degree of personal injustice. The significant potential for violence and endangerment does not allow a diversionary settlement.

While in the case of robbery pursuant to § 142 StGB, a diversion can theoretically only be examined in narrowly limited exceptional cases, it is ruled out in the case of aggravated robbery due to the legal qualification and the significant minimum penalty threat. Already the realization of a qualification characteristic according to § 143 StGB leads to the fact that neither guilt nor consequences of the crime are to be classified as minor.

A diversion is therefore not an option if

• a weapon was used,
• the crime was committed as a member of a criminal organization,
• serious bodily injury resulted from the use of force, serious permanent consequences, or the death of a person,
• the crime scene exhibits a significant potential for endangerment to life or limb.

In these constellations, a diversionary settlement is legally excluded. Measures such as monetary payments, community service, supervision instructions, or victim-offender mediation are not permitted. A formal criminal procedure with a guilty verdict is mandatory.

Exclusion of Diversion:

In the case of aggravated robbery pursuant to § 143 StGB, the exclusion of diversion exists by law. The increased level of violence, the particular dangerousness of the means of committing the crime, or the serious consequences of the crime preclude classification as a minor or diversion-suitable offense.

Even with comprehensive confession, restitution, or remorse on the part of the perpetrator, there is no room for diversion. The crime is always to be assessed as a serious violation of the victim’s personal safety.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty for aggravated robbery according to the extent of the asset encroachment, but above all according to the nature, intensity, and dangerousness of the use of force, as well as the concrete consequences of the crime. What is decisive is how severely the victim’s life or limb was endangered or injured, whether weapons were used, multiple perpetrators were involved, or serious injuries occurred. The asset aspect is significantly less important than the violence component, but remains relevant for the overall assessment.

Of particular importance is whether the perpetrator acted in a targeted, planned, or organized manner, whether the crime was spontaneous or prepared, and what potential for endangerment existed for the victim. In the case of § 143 Abs. 2 StGB, the resulting consequences of the injury are the central penalty assessment factor.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• a weapon was used or particularly dangerous violence was applied,
• several perpetrators knowingly cooperated, especially within the framework of a criminal organization,
• the victim was seriously injured, permanently harmed, or killed,
• there was a high degree of brutality or ruthlessness,
• the perpetrator acted in a targeted or planned manner,
• the victim was particularly defenseless or at the mercy of the perpetrator,
• relevant prior convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• a clean record,
• an early, comprehensive confession,
• recognizable remorse and insight,
• active restitution, as far as possible,
• a subordinate participation in the crime in the case of joint perpetration,
• an excessively long duration of proceedings.

Due to the high statutory penalty threat, the scope for mitigations is limited. A conditional remission of sentence is only considered if the imposed penalty framework allows this and a positive social prognosis exists. In the case of the qualifications of § 143 Abs. 2 StGB, a conditional remission is regularly excluded.

Penalty Range

In the case of aggravated robbery, the law provides for clearly graduated prison sentences, which are based on the nature of the qualification and the consequences of the use of force.

If a robbery is committed under particularly dangerous circumstances, for example, because a weapon is used or several perpetrators cooperate in an organized manner, the penalty framework is at least one year and at most fifteen years imprisonment. Already these forms of commission are considered so dangerous that a milder punishment is excluded.

If the use of force leads to serious physical injuries, the penalty framework increases significantly. In these cases, a prison sentence of at least five years up to fifteen years is threatened. The legislator assumes here that the attack on physical integrity is particularly serious.

If serious permanent consequences result from the crime, such as permanent health damage, the penalty framework is ten to twenty years imprisonment. The crime is assessed in these constellations as a particularly serious violent crime.

If the use of force results in the death of a person, the penalty threat ranges from ten to twenty years imprisonment or even up to life imprisonment. In these cases, the focus is no longer on the property damage, but on the fatal attack on life and limb.

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 aggravated robbery pursuant to § 143 StGB, a monetary penalty is not provided for. Due to the mandatory minimum prison sentences, the day-fine system is not applied. A pure monetary penalty is excluded.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 StGB: If the statutory penalty threat ranges up to five years, the court may impose a monetary penalty instead of a short prison sentence of at most one year.

This possibility does not exist in the case of aggravated robbery pursuant to § 143 StGB. Aggravated robbery in all variants is threatened with minimum prison sentences of at least one year, and even significantly more in the case of serious consequences of the crime. Thus, the scope of application of § 37 StGB is excluded from the outset. A replacement of the prison sentence with a monetary penalty is legally not an option.

§ 43 StGB: A prison sentence can be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis. In the case of aggravated robbery, this possibility is nur theoretisch im untersten Bereich der Strafdrohung nach § 143 Abs. 1 StGB conceivable only theoretically in the lowest range of the penalty threat according to § 143 Abs. 1 StGB. In practice, a conditional remission is granted extremely cautiously, as the offense already requires qualified violence, use of weapons, or organized commission of the offense.

In the case of serious consequences of the crime according to § 143 Abs. 2 StGB with minimum penalties of five or ten years, a conditional remission of sentence is legally excluded.

§ 43a StGB: The partially conditional remission allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally suspended parts of the sentence. It is possible for penalties over six months and up to two years.

In the case of aggravated robbery, this possibility is considered only in rare exceptional cases of § 143 Abs. 1 StGB, if the sentence commensurate with guilt is just over six months, no serious consequences of the crime have occurred, and exceptionally favorable circumstances of the perpetrator exist.

In all forms of aggravated robbery with an increased minimum prison sentence, a partially conditional remission is regularly excluded.

§§ 50 to 52 StGB: The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance. These concern, for example,

• restitution,
• contact or approach bans,
• behavioral training or
• structuring measures to prevent relapse.

In the case of aggravated robbery, such measures are considered only supplementary and exclusively within the framework of a (partially) conditional remission of sentence. They cannot replace the prison sentence, but only accompany it.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

In the case of aggravated robbery, only the Regional Court has jurisdiction. A District Court is not considered in any constellation.

Regional Court as a court of lay assessors

This jurisdiction exists if the aggravated robbery

• is committed using a weapon or
• is carried out as a member of a criminal organization with the participation of another member or
• serious injury to the victim occurs through the use of force.

In these cases, it concerns qualified, but not yet aggravated forms of commission based on the result, in which the increased injustice results from the manner of commission or the intensity of the injury.

Regional Court as a jury court

This jurisdiction exists if the aggravated robbery

• leads to bodily injuries with serious permanent consequences or
• leads to the death of a person.

Here, the manner of commission is no longer the focus, but the particularly serious consequence of the use of force, which requires a decision by the jury court.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the scene of the crime is generally locally competent. What is decisive is where the violence was used or the threat was uttered and where the deprivation of assets was realized.

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 and nullity complaints are permitted against judgments of the Regional Court as a court of lay assessors or a jury court. The Supreme Court is responsible for the decision on these legal remedies, provided that the legal requirements are met.

Preliminary decisions and resolutions can be brought before the Higher Regional Court within the framework of the legal provisions.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of aggravated robbery, the injured person as a private party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings. Since the aggravated robbery also concerns the unauthorized removal of a movable object belonging to another through the use of force or qualified threat, the claims relate in particular to the value of the object, replacement costs, loss of use, loss of use advantage, as well as further property damage that has arisen as a result of the crime.

In addition, consequential damages can be demanded to be replaced, for example, if the deprivation of assets is associated with physical injuries, medical treatment costs, loss of earnings or other direct consequences of the crime.

The private party connection inhibits the statute of limitations of the asserted claims as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. After a legally binding conclusion, the statute of limitations only continues to run insofar as the claims have not been awarded.

A voluntary compensation, such as the return of the item or compensation for the damage, may have a mitigating effect if it is carried out promptly and earnestly. In the case of aggravated robbery, however, this mitigating effect is severely limited, as the focus of the injustice lies in the use of violence against a person.

If the perpetrator acted in a targeted manner, with increased force or under particularly dangerous circumstances, a subsequent compensation for damages regularly loses a significant part of its mitigating significance.

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 it is an official offense, the police and public prosecutor’s office initiate the proceedings ex officio as soon as a corresponding suspicion exists. A special declaration of 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

Aggravated robbery pursuant to § 143 of the Criminal Code (StGB) constitutes a particularly serious qualification of robbery and requires qualified use of force, use of weapons, organized commission of the offense or serious consequences of the offense. The legal assessment depends largely on the specific course of events, the intent, the alleged qualifying characteristics and the evidence. Even minor deviations in the facts can determine whether aggravated robbery actually exists or whether a different legal classification is required.

An early involvement of a lawyer ensures that the facts are precisely classified, the allegations of violence and qualification are critically questioned, and exculpatory circumstances are processed in a legally usable manner.

Our law firm

• examines whether the requirements for aggravated robbery are actually met or whether a distinction from simple robbery or other offenses is possible,
• analyzes the evidence, in particular regarding use of force, use of weapons, consequences of the offense and forms of participation,
• develops a clear and realistic defense strategy that classifies the facts completely, in a structured manner and with legal precision.

As a representation specialized in criminal law, we ensure that the charge of aggravated robbery is carefully examined and that the proceedings are conducted on a sustainable factual basis in order to keep the legal and personal consequences for the person concerned as low as possible.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation