Aggravated theft

According to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB), aggravated theft occurs if a person commits theft according to § 127 of the Criminal Code (StGB) and, in addition, a qualifying circumstance according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is met. The perpetrator takes away a movable object belonging to someone else by breaking someone else’s custody and establishing new custody, acting intentionally and with the aim of unlawfully enriching themselves or a third party.
In contrast to the basic offense, it is not only the interference with the external power of disposition that is decisive here, but also the increased injustice that results from the legal qualification criteria, in particular from value limits or from the special circumstances mentioned in § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB). Even the short-term acquisition of actual control over the object is sufficient in the case of aggravated theft. § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) increases the penalty because the legislator particularly sanctions these forms of interference with property.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) requires theft according to § 127 of the Criminal Code (StGB). It, therefore, requires the taking away of a movable object belonging to someone else. Taking away means that the perpetrator removes the actual control over the object from the entitled party and establishes new control over the object themselves or through a third party, i.e., takes possession of the object and deprives the previous owner of control over it.

In addition, in the case of aggravated theft, a qualifying circumstance according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) must be present. Therefore, not only the interference with the external power of disposition is decisive, but also the increased degree of injustice that results from special circumstances or from value limits.

Even in the case of aggravated theft, the short-term acquisition of actual control over the object is sufficient if the entitled party loses control as a result. Permanent possession or later use is not required.

§ 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) protects external property from particularly serious forms of unauthorized removal and, as a qualification, is linked to the basic offense of theft.

Qualifying circumstances

Aggravated theft occurs in particular if the taking away occurs in a particular emergency situation, such as during a fire, a flood, or by taking advantage of the helplessness of the person being stolen from. Likewise, § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) covers takings in rooms of religious practice or on objects dedicated to worship, on particularly protected cultural assets from publicly accessible collections or buildings, as well as on essential components of critical infrastructure. Aggravated theft also occurs if the value of the object exceeds €5,000. If the value exceeds €300,000, a particularly serious form of theft is given.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the offense can be any person responsible under criminal law who takes possession of an external object and thereby deprives the entitled party of actual control. Personal characteristics of the perpetrator are also irrelevant in the case of aggravated theft.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is any movable physical object belonging to someone else with asset value. An object belongs to someone else if it does not belong exclusively to the perpetrator. Movable is any object that can actually be taken away.

In the case of aggravated theft, a qualifying circumstance according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) must also be present.

Act:

The act consists of the taking away. This exists if the perpetrator takes possession of the object without or against the will of the entitled party and this thereby loses actual control. The taking away can occur secretly, openly, or by taking advantage of carelessness, as long as no violence is used against persons.

Result of the Offense:

The success of the offense lies in the fact that the entitled party loses actual control over the object and the perpetrator establishes new custody. Even the short-term taking possession of the object is sufficient. A permanent loss or later use is not required.

Causality:

The loss of control over the object must have been caused by the behavior of the perpetrator. Without the act of taking away, it would not have come to that.

Objective Attribution:

The success is objectively attributable if exactly what § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) in conjunction with § 127 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is intended to prevent is realized, namely that someone takes possession of external objects under particularly aggravating circumstances or with considerable property damage, although they are not entitled to do so.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The element of aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) covers cases in which theft according to § 127 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is present and a qualifying circumstance is also given. Here, too, a movable object belonging to someone else is intentionally taken away, so that the entitled party loses actual control over the object and the perpetrator establishes new custody. The focus remains on the removal of the object itself, not on its damage or alteration. The increased injustice results from the special circumstances of the act or from the increased value of the object, not from a deviating act.

• § 129 of the Criminal Code (StGB) – Theft by burglary or with weapons: Theft by burglary or with weapons represents an independent qualification of theft. Here, too, it is about the taking away of a movable object belonging to someone else, but under particularly aggravating modalities of the execution of the act, such as burglary or carrying weapons. While § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is linked to certain external circumstances or value limits, § 129 of the Criminal Code (StGB) refers to the type of commission. If the requirements of § 129 of the Criminal Code (StGB) are met, the aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is superseded and the stricter penalty of § 129 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is applied.
• § 125 of the Criminal Code (StGB) – Damage to property covers any intentional impairment of an external object, which worsens its condition or usability. The entitled party basically retains the object, but it is damaged, disfigured, or rendered unusable.
  The distinction from aggravated theft is made according to the point of attack: In the case of damage to property, the object remains with the entitled party, its condition worsens. In the case of aggravated theft, the entitled party loses the object itself. If damage and taking away coincide, for example, if an object is damaged and then stolen, damage to property and (aggravated) theft exist side by side, as different legal interests are violated.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if further independent offenses are added to the aggravated theft, such as damage to property, trespassing, or dangerous threats. The aggravated theft retains its independent degree of injustice and is not superseded. If several legal interests are violated, the offenses stand side by side.

Spurious Concurrence:

A superseding due to specialty comes into consideration if another element of the offense encompasses the entire degree of injustice of the aggravated theft. This is the case, for example, with even further qualified forms of theft, in which § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is superseded as a qualification.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several aggravated thefts are committed independently, for example, in the case of temporally separated takings away or in the case of different objects of the offense. Each taking away forms its own act, provided that there is no natural unity of action.

Continued Action:

A single act can be assumed if several removals are directly related and are carried out with a uniform intent, for example, in the case of several appropriations within the same plan of action. The act ends as soon as no further removals take place or the perpetrator abandons their intent.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused has committed theft within the meaning of § 127 of the Criminal Code (StGB) and, in addition, a qualifying circumstance according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is present. Decisive is the proof that the entitled party has lost actual control over the object and the accused has gained new control over it themselves or through a third party. It is not only about the objective removal of the object, but also about the existence of the qualifying requirements of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB).

It must be proven, in particular, that

• an act of taking away was actually carried out,
• the object belonged to someone else, i.e., was not exclusively owned by the accused,
• the entitled party has lost actual control over the object,
• the accused has established new custody, even if this was only short-term,
• the removal is causally related to the behavior of the accused,
• a qualifying circumstance of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) is given, such as a special execution of the act or exceeding the legal value limit.

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged taking away and the qualifying circumstance are objectively ascertainable, for example, through witness statements, video recordings, cash register data, inventory documents, proof of value, or other comprehensible circumstances.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, a taking away is present and the requirements of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) are met. The focus is on the question of whether the entitled party has actually lost the object, whether this loss is attributable to the accused, and whether the qualifying circumstance is proven.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• custody relationships before and after the incident,
• type and course of the alleged taking away,
• time and duration of the loss of control,
• witness statements on the course of the act and the participation of the accused,
• video recordings, cash register data, or other objective evidence,
• circumstances or documents that justify the qualified character of the theft,
• whether a reasonable average person would assume that the object was removed from the entitled party.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere misunderstandings, oversights, temporary transfers of possession, or situations without a real loss of control, which do not constitute a removal that fulfills the elements of the offense.

Accused Person:

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

• whether a taking away has actually taken place,
• whether the entitled party has really lost control over the object,
• whether there was consent, authorization, or intent to return,
• whether the object was only touched or moved briefly without establishing new custody,
• contradictions or gaps in the presentation of the course of the act,
• alternative causes that could explain the loss of the object just as plausibly,
• whether the alleged qualifying circumstances actually exist.

It can also present that certain actions have occurred misleadingly, accidentally, or with the consent of the entitled party or that the requirements of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB):

• video recordings or photos, for example, from shops or public spaces,
• witness statements on the course of the taking away,
• cash register data, inventory documents, or access controls,
• documents on the value of the object or on the qualifying circumstances,
• communication records from which the course or intentions can be seen,
• temporal sequences that show when the object disappeared and who had access.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Taking away an e-bike with considerable property damage: The perpetrator steals a high-quality e-bike worth €7,500 from an unlocked garage. He assumes that the owner will not notice the loss in the short term and intends to use the e-bike only temporarily. In fact, the owner loses actual control over the object, while the perpetrator establishes new custody. The value of the e-bike exceeds the legal value limit and thus constitutes aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB). Decisive is that the perpetrator takes possession of the object without consent and removes it from the entitled party. Even the short-term acquisition is sufficient to realize the element of the offense. The considerable economic damage explains the qualification of the theft, but is not decisive for the taking away as such.
• Taking away an object under qualifying circumstances: The perpetrator takes possession of an external object in a publicly accessible room, which is located in a generally accessible collection, and removes it without the consent of the entitled party. The entitled party thereby loses the possibility of disposition and control over the object, while the perpetrator establishes new custody. Regardless of whether the perpetrator recognizes the special value of the object, there is aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) due to the qualifying circumstances. Decisive is the unauthorized removal of the object under the legally prescribed aggravating conditions.

These examples show that aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) exists if a movable object belonging to someone else is taken away without consent, the entitled party loses actual control, and a qualifying circumstance or a legal value limit is additionally met. Here, too, it is not the duration of the taking away that is decisive, but the interference with the external power of disposition and control over the object in connection with the increased degree of injustice.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code (StGB) requires intent. The perpetrator must know that they are taking away a movable object belonging to someone else by depriving the entitled party of actual control over the object and establishing new custody themselves. They must recognize that the object does not belong to them and that the taking away occurs without the consent of the entitled party.

The perpetrator must, therefore, understand that their behavior in the overall picture represents a targeted removal of an external object and is typically suitable to exclude the entitled party from the use and disposition of the object. For the intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the taking away possible and accepts it. An intent that goes beyond this is not required; conditional intent is sufficient.

In addition, the intent must also extend to the qualifying characteristic of § 128 of the Criminal Code. The perpetrator must therefore at least accept as a possibility that a qualifying condition exists, in particular that the value of the item exceeds the relevant value limit. It is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the higher value possible and accepts it. However, anyone who seriously assumes that the item is only of minor value and that the value limit will not be reached does not subjectively realize the qualifying characteristic.

In addition, theft requires an intent to enrich oneself. The perpetrator must at least accept as a possibility to obtain an unlawful financial advantage for themselves or a third party, for example by keeping, using, passing on or selling the item. This additional internal objective is typical for property offenses and must also be present in the case of qualified theft.

There is no subjective element if the perpetrator seriously believes to be entitled to the removal, that the action is desired or permitted by the entitled party, or that he is entitled to a claim to the item. The same applies if the perpetrator denies the qualifying characteristic without conditional intent because he seriously assumes a value below the value limit.

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 in the case of theft pursuant to § 128 of the Criminal Code is not excluded, but is considered much more cautiously. The offense concerns a qualified theft, in which additional circumstances such as a significant value dimension or a particularly protected item exist. This is regularly associated with an increased injustice, which only allows a limited diversionary settlement.

In cases in which the qualifying circumstance is only narrowly realized, the perpetrator acts immediately with insight and the consequences can be quickly and completely compensated, a diversion can nevertheless be examined. As the significance of the qualifying characteristic, the higher amount of damage or the targeted approach increases, the probability of a diversionary settlement decreases significantly.

Diversion may be considered if

• the guilt is minor overall,
• the qualifying circumstance is not particularly serious,
• no serious consequential effects have occurred,
• there is no systematic or repeated behavior,
• 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 financial loss has occurred,
• the qualifying circumstance is clearly and distinctly pronounced,
• the act was committed deliberately, purposefully, or systematically,
• several independent acts of theft are present,
• repeated or systematic behavior is present,
• special aggravating circumstances are added,
• or the overall behavior constitutes a serious violation of another person’s property rights.

Only in the case of clearly the slightest guilt and immediate remorse can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary approach is permissible. In practice, diversion is possible under § 128 of the Criminal Code, but significantly more limited than in the case of the basic offense and strictly dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty based on the extent of the property infringement, the nature, duration, and intensity of the removal, and the extent to which the removal of the item has impaired the economic position or use of the entitled party. Decisive is whether the perpetrator acted purposefully, systematically, or repeatedly and whether the behavior has caused a noticeable impairment of assets.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the removals were continued over a longer period,
• systematic or particularly persistent behavior was present,
• significant financial damage has occurred,
• several objects or economically significant items were affected,
• despite clear indications or requests to cease, further removals occurred,
• a special breach of trust was present, such as in cases of theft within the context of a close, working, or dependent relationship,
• or relevant prior convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• Impeccability,
• a full confession and recognizable insight,
• an immediate cessation of the criminal behavior,
• 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

The theft according to § 127 of the Criminal Code forms the basic offense and is threatened with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates.

• If there is a qualifying offense under § 128 para. 1 of the Criminal Code , for example because the theft
• by exploiting a particular distress or helplessness,
• in a room used for religious practice or on a religiously dedicated item,
• on an item of generally recognized scientific, artistic, folkloric or historical value,
• on an essential component of the critical infrastructure
• or on an item with a value of more than € 5,000
• is committed, there is aggravated theft. In these cases, the penalty is imprisonment of up to three years.

If the value of the stolen item exceeds € 300,000, § 128 para. 2 of the Criminal Code applies . The law provides for a significantly increased penalty of imprisonment from one to ten years. A fine is no longer provided for in this case.

Further qualified forms of theft such as theft by burglary or with weapons (§ 129 of the Criminal Code), commercial theft (§ 130 of the Criminal Code) or robbery theft (§ 131 of the Criminal Code) lead to the fact that the respectively more specific legal penalty framework is decisive. The qualification characteristics of § 128 of the Criminal Code remain relevant for the legal classification and sentencing, provided that they are not completely covered by a more specific offense.

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 theft pursuant to § 128 of the Criminal Code, the fine recedes significantly into the background. Due to the increased penalty threat, a fine is considered only in exceptional cases, for example in the case of minor guilt and at the lower end of the qualification. If the value qualification of § 128 para. 2 of the Criminal Code with a penalty range of imprisonment from one to ten years, a fine is legally excluded.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 of the Criminal Code: If the legal 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 exists also in the case of aggravated theft.

In practice, however, this provision is applied more cautiously, as aggravated theft requires qualifying circumstances and regularly has a higher injustice. An application is primarily considered if the act moves at the lower end of the qualification, the damage was minor or compensated and no aggravating circumstances exist.
In the case of particularly high value qualifications with a legal minimum prison sentence, an application is excluded.

§ 43 of the Criminal Code: A prison sentence can be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis. This possibility exists also in the case of aggravated theft. A conditional remission is granted more cautiously if the act was committed systematically, repeatedly or under clearly aggravating circumstances. A conditional remission is realistic above all if the damage has been fully compensated, the perpetrator is remorseful and the act is in the lower qualification range.

§ 43a of the Criminal Code: The partially conditional remission allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally suspended part of the sentence. It is possible for penalties over six months and up to two years.
In the case of aggravated theft, this form can be particularly important if the sentence appropriate to the guilt lies between six months and two years. In cases with a minimum prison sentence, it is regularly excluded.

§§ 50 to 52 of the Criminal Code: The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance. These often concern the compensation for damages, the return of the item, the avoidance of further property offenses or structuring measures such as behavioral training. The aim is to compensate for the damage caused and to prevent future criminal offenses.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

For aggravated theft pursuant to § 128 of the Criminal Code, the Regional Court is generally responsible due to the increased penalty threat. The simple area of responsibility of the District Court is regularly exceeded here, as § 128 para. 1 of the Criminal Code provides for a imprisonment of up to three years.

If it is a case of aggravated theft according to § 128 para. 1 of the Criminal Code , the Regional Court decides as a single judge. A District Court is no longer considered due to a lack of sufficient subject-matter jurisdiction.

If the value of the item exceeds € 300,000 and there is therefore aggravated theft according to § 128 para. 2 of the Criminal Code is present, the Court of Lay Assessors is responsible due to the penalty threat of imprisonment from one to ten years. A single judge is excluded in these cases.

A jury court is not considered, as even in the case of § 128 para. 2 of the Criminal Code, no penalty threat is provided for that would open its jurisdiction.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of removal is responsible. Decisive is where the entitled party lost actual control over the item and the perpetrator established new custody.

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, if applicable, complaints on points of nullity are permitted against judgments of the Regional Court as the court of first instance, depending on the form of decision. The Supreme Court is responsible, provided that the legal requirements are met.

If the aggravated theft was negotiated before the Court of Lay Assessors, the chain of appeal is also based on the general rules, whereby complaints on points of nullity and appeals to the Supreme Court are open.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of aggravated theft according to § 128 of the Criminal Code, the injured person as a private party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings. Since this offense also concerns the unauthorized removal of a third party’s movable property, the claims relate in particular to the value of the item, replacement costs, loss of use, loss of use advantage as well as further property law damages that have arisen as a result of the removal.

Depending on the case, consequential damages can also be claimed, for example if the item was required for professional or business purposes and the removal has led to significant economic disadvantages.

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

A voluntary compensation, such as the return of the item, the payment of the value, or a serious effort to compensate, can have a mitigating effect, provided that it occurs in a timely and complete manner.

However, if the perpetrator has acted systematically, repeatedly or in a way that has led to significant financial loss, a later compensation for damages usually loses a large part of its mitigating effect. In such constellations, a subsequent compensation 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 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

The aggravated theft pursuant to § 128 of the Criminal Code is based on the basic offense of theft and additionally requires a qualifying circumstance or a significant property value. The legal assessment depends largely on the specific course of events, the intent, the qualification and the evidence. Even small deviations in the facts can be decisive.

An early legal support ensures that the facts are correctly classified, evidence is correctly assessed and exculpatory circumstances are processed in a legally usable way.

Our law firm

• examines whether the requirements of aggravated theft are actually met or whether a different legal assessment is required,
• analyzes the evidence and the alleged qualification characteristics,
• develops a clear defense strategy that classifies the facts completely and legally precisely.

As a representation specialized in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation of aggravated theft is carefully examined and the proceedings are conducted on a sustainable factual basis.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation