Embezzlement

Embezzlement pursuant to § 134 StGB is committed by anyone who appropriates a third-party asset that he has found or that has come into his possession by mistake or otherwise without his involvement, intentionally, for himself or a third party, in order to unlawfully enrich himself or the third party. The perpetrator already has actual control of the item without having established it by taking it away. Embezzlement also occurs if someone initially takes a third-party asset into their possession without the intention of appropriating it and only subsequently appropriates it. The intention to appropriate is decisive as an expression of the will to treat the third-party asset as an owner. If certain value limits are exceeded, the law increases the threat of punishment due to the increased property injustice.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of embezzlement differs fundamentally from theft because there is no taking away. The third-party asset is already in the perpetrator’s possession without the perpetrator having established possession by means of an unlawful removal. The objective element therefore describes those external circumstances under which the unlawful appropriation of a third-party asset already under control becomes a punishable offense.

Embezzlement requires that a third-party asset either has been found, has come into the perpetrator’s possession by mistake or otherwise without the perpetrator’s involvement, or was initially taken over without the intention of appropriation. The decisive factor is that the establishment of possession was initially legally neutral or permitted. The punishable content of the offense only arises when the perpetrator treats the third-party asset as an owner and permanently deprives the entitled party of it.

In contrast to theft, there is no breach of possession. In the case of embezzlement, the legislator does not sanction the acquisition of control over the item, but the abuse of an already existing actual control over the item.

Qualifying circumstances

A qualified embezzlement exists if the value of the third-party asset exceeds 5,000 euros. In this case, the threat of punishment increases significantly. If the value exceeds 300,000 euros, there is a particularly serious form of embezzlement, which is threatened with a considerably increased prison sentence. The value limit is based exclusively on the objective financial loss.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the offense can be any person who is responsible under criminal law who has a third-party asset in their possession. No special personal characteristics are required.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is a third-party asset with a financial value. The asset is third-party if it is not exclusively owned by the perpetrator. In contrast to theft, it does not have to be movable in the sense of being taken away, as possession already exists.

Act:

The act consists of appropriation. This exists if the perpetrator permanently deprives the entitled party of the third-party asset and assumes an owner-like position for himself or a third party. In paragraph 2, the subsequent appropriation is sufficient, although the asset was originally taken over without the intention of appropriation.

Result of the Offense:

The success of the offense lies in the fact that the entitled party permanently loses his actual access option and the perpetrator incorporates the asset into his assets or makes it available to a third party. An actual exploitation is not required.

Causality:

The loss of the possibility of access must be causally attributable to the perpetrator’s act of appropriation. Without this act, the financial loss would not have occurred.

Objective Attribution:

The success is objectively attributable if exactly the risk that the offense is intended to prevent is realized, namely that third-party assets are unlawfully withdrawn through abusive exploitation of an existing possession.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The offense of embezzlement covers cases in which the perpetrator appropriates a third-party asset that is already in his possession. There is no taking away. The entitled party does not lose the asset through a withdrawal, but because the perpetrator abuses an existing actual control over the item. The focus of the injustice is therefore not on acquiring the item, but on the breach of trust appropriation of a third-party asset already under control.

• § 127 StGB – Theft: Theft requires that a third-party movable item is taken away. The perpetrator breaks third-party possession and establishes new possession, as a result of which the entitled party loses actual control over the item. This taking away is precisely not given in the case of embezzlement, as the third-party asset is already in the perpetrator’s possession. The decisive factor for the distinction is therefore whether the perpetrator only acquired possession through the act or whether he already had possession and only subsequently abused it through appropriation. If there is a taking away, embezzlement is ruled out.
• § 125 StGB – Damage to property: Damage to property covers cases in which a third-party item is damaged, destroyed or impaired in its usability while it remains with the entitled party. The attack is directed against the condition of the item, not against its allocation to the assets of the entitled party. In the case of embezzlement, the entitled party loses the item itself, without it depending on a change in its condition. If damage and appropriation coincide, damage to property and embezzlement can be realized side by side, as different legal interests are violated.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if embezzlement is accompanied by other independent offenses, such as damage to property, suppression of documents or fraud. The embezzlement retains its independent content of injustice and is not suppressed. If several legal interests are violated, the offenses stand side by side.

Spurious Concurrence:

A suppression due to specificity comes into consideration if another offense completely encompasses the entire content of injustice of the embezzlement. This is the case, for example, with other property offenses that completely cover an appropriation of a third-party asset already in possession and are therefore to be regarded as more specific.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several embezzlements are committed independently, for example in the case of appropriation acts separated in time or in the case of different objects of the offense. Each appropriation constitutes a separate act, provided that there is no natural unit of action.

Continued Action:

A single act can be assumed if several acts of appropriation are directly related and are carried out with a uniform intent, for example in the case of repeated retention or resale of third-party items within the scope of the same plan. The act ends as soon as no further appropriations take place 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 an embezzlement within the meaning of § 134 StGB. The decisive factor is the proof that the accused has appropriated a third-party asset that he has found or that has come into his possession by mistake or otherwise without his involvement, or that he has subsequently embezzled an asset initially acquired without the intention of appropriation. The focus is not on a taking away, but on the unlawful appropriation of an already existing possession.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a third-party asset existed,
• the asset was not owned by the accused,
• the asset was already in the possession of the accused,
• the possession was established without taking away, for example by finding or mistake,
• an act of appropriation was carried out, by which the asset was to be permanently withdrawn from the entitled party,
• the entitled party thereby suffered a financial loss,
• the appropriation was causal for the financial loss,
• if applicable, a qualifying value limit was exceeded.

The public prosecutor’s office must present whether the alleged embezzlement is objectively ascertainable, for example through witness statements, circumstances of the find, communication records, ownership, requests for return, proof of value or other comprehensible circumstances.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether a third-party asset, an existing possession and an appropriation have been proven according to objective standards. The focus is on the question of whether the accused abused the existing possession with the intention of keeping the asset as an owner and permanently excluding the entitled party.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• Type and origin of the possession,
• Circumstances of the finding or obtaining of the asset,
• concrete acts of appropriation or omissions to return,
• Time and duration of the exclusion of the entitled party,
• Witness statements on the handling of the asset,
• Objective evidence of possession, value and access options,
• Circumstances that suggest an intention to appropriate or enrich oneself,
• whether a reasonable average person would assume a final appropriation.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere temporary retention, errors, intentions to return, safekeeping or situations without a final intention to appropriate, which do not constitute embezzlement within the meaning of the offense.

Accused Person:

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

• whether the asset was actually a third-party asset,
• whether there was an appropriation or merely a temporary retention,
• whether there was an intention to return,
• whether the asset was retained by mistake or only for a short time,
• whether the entitled party was reachable or refused to return it,
• whether there is intent or merely negligence,
• Contradictions or gaps in the alleged course of events,
• Alternative causes for the loss of the asset.

She can also demonstrate that her behavior was misunderstandable, conditional on the situation or motivated by an intention to return, or that the requirements of § 134 StGB are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is of particular importance in the case of § 134 StGB:

• Witness statements on finding, possession and handling of the asset,
• Evidence of ownership and value relationships,
• Communication records on requests for return or ownership claims,
• time sequences that show how long the asset was retained,
• Circumstances from which an intention to appropriate can be inferred.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Retention of a found smartphone: The perpetrator finds a third-party smartphone in a café that another guest has obviously forgotten. Instead of handing the device over to the staff or contacting the owner, he keeps it and uses it for his own purposes. The smartphone came into his possession without being taken away, as he only found it. By consciously retaining and using it, he appropriates the third-party asset and permanently excludes the entitled party from access. The decisive factor is not the finding as such, but the subsequent appropriation, through which the offense of embezzlement pursuant to § 134 StGB is realized.
• Non-returned incorrect transfer: An amount of € 6,200 is mistakenly transferred to the perpetrator’s account. The perpetrator recognizes the error, but does not inform the sender and uses the money for private expenses. The amount of money came into his possession by mistake without the perpetrator’s involvement. By using the money, he intentionally appropriates it and causes a financial loss to the entitled party. Due to the exceeded value limit, there is a qualified embezzlement. The decisive factor is that the perpetrator does not return the mistakenly acquired asset, but treats it as his own.

These examples show that embezzlement pursuant to § 134 StGB exists if a third-party asset comes into the possession of the perpetrator without being taken away and he appropriates it through an act of appropriation, regardless of whether the original acquisition of the asset was lawful or accidental.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of embezzlement pursuant to § 134 StGB requires intent with regard to the appropriation of a third-party asset that is already in the perpetrator’s possession. The perpetrator must know or at least tacitly accept that the asset is a third-party asset and that he has no right to keep it as an owner or to dispose of it.

The perpetrator must recognize that the third-party asset came into his possession without being taken away, for example by finding, mistake or in some other way without his involvement, or that he initially took it over without the intention of appropriation. The decisive factor is that he later decides to appropriate the asset, i.e. to permanently exclude the entitled party from the possibility of access. For the intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the appropriation possible and accepts it. An intention is not required; conditional intent is sufficient.

In addition, the perpetrator must act with intent to enrich himself. He must at least tacitly accept to obtain an unlawful financial advantage for himself or a third party through the appropriation, for example by retaining, using, passing on or selling the asset. This inner objective distinguishes the punishable embezzlement from mere negligent or temporary retention.

If the accusation relates to a qualified embezzlement, the intent must also extend to the value of the asset. It is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the value exceeding the statutory value limit possible and accepts it. On the other hand, anyone who seriously assumes that the value is below the relevant limit does not subjectively realize the qualified form.

A subjective element is absent if the perpetrator sincerely believes they are entitled to retain or use the item, has an intention to return it, or assumes that the entitled party agrees to the retention. The same applies if the perpetrator denies the intention to misappropriate or does not at least tacitly accept the occurrence of an unlawful financial advantage.

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:

Diversion is not excluded in the case of embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code, but is considered cautiously. The offense concerns an interference with property in which the perpetrator appropriates another person’s property by misappropriating an existing possession. This is regularly associated with a certain degree of breach of trust or loyalty, which may limit a diversionary settlement.

In cases in which the embezzlement is minor, the value of the item is low, the perpetrator acts with immediate insight, and the item is returned quickly and completely or the damage is compensated, a diversion can be considered. With increasing value, longer retention period, or deliberate exploitation of the situation, the probability of a diversionary settlement decreases significantly.

Diversion may be considered if

• the overall guilt is minor,
• the value of the embezzled property is not significant,
• 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:

Exclusion of diversion

Diversion is excluded if

• a significant financial loss has occurred,
• a qualified value limit is significantly exceeded,
• the appropriation was carried out deliberately, purposefully, or systematically,
• several independent acts of embezzlement exist,
• 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 minimal guilt and immediate remorse can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary approach is permissible. In practice, diversion under § 134 of the Criminal Code is possible, but highly dependent on the individual case and clearly limited, especially in the case of higher-value or deliberately exploited embezzlements.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the extent of the interference with property, the nature, duration, and intensity of the appropriation, and the extent to which the retention or use of the other person’s property 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 caused a noticeable impairment of assets.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the appropriation or retention was 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 for return, the other person’s property was further retained,
• a special breach of trust existed, for example, within the framework of a close, working, or dependent relationship,
• or relevant prior convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• a clean record,
• a full confession and recognizable insight,
• an immediate return of the other person’s property or termination of the unlawful behavior,
• active efforts at restitution or damage regulation,
• special stress or overstrain 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 embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code is threatened in the basic offense with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates. This covers cases in which the perpetrator appropriates another person’s property that they have found or that has come into their possession by mistake or otherwise without their involvement, as well as cases of subsequent appropriation of property initially obtained without intent to misappropriate.

If the value of the embezzled property exceeds €5,000, this constitutes a qualified form of embezzlement. In these cases, the penalty is imprisonment of up to two years. The increased penalty takes into account the increased financial loss, without it depending on special modalities of the commission of the offense.

If the value of the other person’s property exceeds €300,000, § 134 para. 3 of the Criminal Code provides for a further aggravated penalty. In this case, the penalty is imprisonment from six months to five years. A mere fine is no longer provided for here.

Other more specific property offenses may take precedence in individual cases if they cover the entire unlawful content of the act. However, what remains decisive is that the penalty for embezzlement is based exclusively on the nature of the appropriation and on the statutory value limits.

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 embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code, a fine, especially in the basic offense, is regularly considered and is common in practice. With increasing value of the embezzled property, the fine increasingly recedes. If the highest value limit is exceeded, only a imprisonment is provided for.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 of the Criminal Code: If the statutory penalty extends up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short term of imprisonment of no more than one year. This possibility therefore also exists in the case of embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code.

In practice, however, this provision is applied more cautiously if qualified value limits exist and thus an increased property injustice is associated with it. An application is primarily considered if the act is in the lower range of the penalty, the damage is minor, or it has been fully compensated and there are no aggravating circumstances. In the case of embezzlements with high value and a correspondingly increased penalty, an application is regularly 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 also exists in the case of embezzlement. A conditional remission is granted more cautiously if the act was committed purposefully, repeatedly, or over a longer period of time. A conditional remission is realistic above all if the property has been returned, the damage has been fully compensated, and the perpetrator is remorseful.

§ 43a of the Criminal Code: The partially 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 embezzlement, this form can be of particular importance if the sentence commensurate with the guilt lies between six months and two years. In the case of higher-value cases with a significantly increased penalty, it is regularly excluded.

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

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

For embezzlement, the subject-matter jurisdiction depends on the penalty range.

In the basic offense with a penalty of imprisonment of up to six months or a fine, the district court has jurisdiction. The area of responsibility of the district court is not exceeded here.

If the value of the embezzled property exceeds 5,000 euros, the penalty range increases to imprisonment of up to two years. In these cases, the regional court decides as a single judge. A jurisdiction of the district court is then no longer considered.

If the value exceeds 300,000 euros, a prison sentence of six months to five years is provided for. Here, too, the regional court is responsible as a single judge, since the penalty does not exceed five years and therefore no jurisdiction of the lay judge court is established.

A jury court is not considered, as embezzlement does not provide for a penalty that would open up such jurisdiction.

Local Jurisdiction

In principle, the court at the place of execution or success is responsible. Decisive is the place where the perpetrator finally retains the other person’s property for themselves or disposes of it like an owner.

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

An appeal is permitted against judgments of the district court.

Depending on the form of decision, appeal and, if applicable, appeal on points of nullity are available against judgments of the regional court as a single judge. The Supreme Court is responsible, provided that the legal requirements are met.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code, the injured party can assert their civil claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since this offense concerns the unlawful appropriation of another person’s property already in the perpetrator’s possession, the claims relate in particular to the value of the property, any replacement costs, loss of use, lost benefits of use, as well as further property damage caused by the retention or use.

Depending on the case, consequential damages can also be claimed for compensation, for example, if the embezzled property was needed for professional or business purposes and the appropriation has led to significant economic disadvantages.

The private claimant’s joinder suspends the statute of limitations for all asserted claims as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. Only after a final conclusion do the limitation periods continue to run, to the extent that the damage was not fully awarded.

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

However, if the perpetrator has acted systematically, repeatedly, or in a way that has led to significant property damage, a subsequent compensation 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 embezzlement pursuant to § 134 of the Criminal Code does not depend on a removal, but on the appropriation of another person’s property that is already in the perpetrator’s possession. The legal assessment depends largely on the specific facts, on the intention to misappropriate and enrich oneself, on any value limits, as well as on the evidence. Even small deviations, for example, in the question of the intention to return or the intent, can be decisive.

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

Our law firm

• examines whether the prerequisites for embezzlement are actually met or whether another legal assessment is required,
• analyzes the evidence, in particular regarding appropriation and intent,
• assesses the significance of value limits and their effects on the penalty range and jurisdiction,
• 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 embezzlement is carefully examined and that 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