Misuse of subsidies

According to § 153b StGB, misuse of subsidies occurs when someone knowingly uses a received public subsidy for purposes other than those for which the money was approved. The crucial point is that the funds are used for purposes other than intended after disbursement, even if the subsidy application was originally submitted correctly. The public interest in ensuring that subsidies are used properly and for their intended purpose is protected. The injustice, therefore, lies not in deception, but in the violation of the specified earmarking. Anyone who as a responsible person within a company or organization decides on the use of the subsidies can also be held liable. The higher the amount misused, the more severe the possible punishment.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of the offense only describes what actually happened and is externally recognizable. It is therefore about concrete actions, such as what subsidy money was spent on and in what amount. Thoughts, intentions, or motives do not play a role.

Misuse of subsidies occurs when subsidy money that has already been disbursed is actually used for purposes other than those for which it was approved. What happens to the money after disbursement is decisive. It is irrelevant whether the subsidy application was submitted correctly or whether the subsidy was originally granted lawfully.

Any demonstrable deviation from the agreed subsidy purpose is sufficient. It makes no difference whether the money is used entirely or only partially for purposes other than intended. Even a later repayment or correction does not change the fact that the misuse of subsidies has already been realized.

Not only the official recipient of the subsidy is liable. Also covered are those persons who actually decide what the subsidy money is used for, such as responsible persons in a company or association. Therefore, the actual decision-making power over the money is decisive, not just the name on the subsidy notification.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The perpetrator can be any person who is criminally responsible and who factually decides on the use of the subsidies. No special personal characteristics are required.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is public subsidies, i.e., monetary grants from public budgets that are granted to pursue public interests and do not require reasonable consideration in terms of monetary value. Pure social benefits are not covered.

Act:

The act consists of the use of the subsidies for purposes other than intended. The funds are objectively used for purposes other than those approved. Any actual deviation from the subsidy purpose is sufficient.

Result of the Offense:

The extent of the subsidies used for purposes other than intended is also part of the result of the offense, as this directly determines the penalty:

• If the amount used for purposes other than intended exceeds € 5,000, this constitutes a qualified offense, which is punishable by imprisonment of up to two years.
• If the amount used for purposes other than intended exceeds € 300,000, this constitutes a particularly serious qualification, with a penalty ranging from six months to five years imprisonment.

Only the amount actually used for purposes other than intended is decisive, not the total amount of the subsidy granted. Several partial amounts are to be added together if they are based on the same use for purposes other than intended.

Causality:

The use of the subsidies for purposes other than intended must be attributable to the conduct of the perpetrator. Without this conduct, there would have been no deviation from the subsidy purpose.

Objective Attribution:

The result is objectively attributable if exactly that risk is realized that § 153b StGB wants to prevent, namely the use of public subsidies for purposes other than intended and the endangerment of trust in the careful handling of public funds.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The offense of misuse of subsidies covers cases in which public subsidies that have already been disbursed are intentionally used for purposes other than intended. The focus of the injustice lies in the breach of the earmarking of public funds. What is decisive is not how the subsidy was obtained, but what happens to the money after disbursement. The public interest in the proper use of subsidies is protected.

• § 146 StGB – Fraud: Fraud concerns cases in which a misrepresentation of facts causes an error that leads to a disposition of assets. The central difference lies in the time and point of attack. In the case of fraud, the deception takes place before or during the acquisition of the money. In the case of misuse of subsidies, the subsidy has already been lawfully or at least factually disbursed, and only then does the use for purposes other than intended occur. If there is already deception in the subsidy application, fraud is the primary issue to be examined. If the deception occurs only after disbursement or not at all, but merely misappropriation, misuse of subsidies exists.
• § 133 StGB – Embezzlement: Embezzlement concerns cases in which someone appropriates a foreign object entrusted to him. Misuse of subsidies, on the other hand, exists if the money is not appropriated, but used for purposes other than intended. What is decisive is that the funds remain in the assets of the perpetrator or his organization, but are used for purposes not approved. An intention to appropriate is not required.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if, in addition to the misuse of subsidies, other independent offenses are committed, such as fraud, breach of trust, forgery of documents, or false testimony. The misuse of subsidies retains its independent content of injustice, as different legal interests are violated. The offenses exist side by side, unless displacement occurs.

Spurious Concurrence:

A displacement due to specialty comes into consideration if another offense completely covers the entire content of injustice of the misuse of subsidies. This is particularly conceivable if the subsidy was already obtained by deception and the violation of purpose is absorbed in it. In these cases, the misuse of subsidies can take a back seat to the fraud.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several independent uses for purposes other than intended occur at different times or in relation to different subsidies. Each use for purposes other than intended forms its own criminal unit, unless there is a natural unit of action.

Continued Action:

A single act can be assumed if several uses for purposes other than intended are closely related in terms of time and subject matter and are supported by a uniform intent, for example, in the case of continuous re-allocation of subsidies within a project. The act ends as soon as no further violations of purpose 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 misuse of subsidies. The decisive factor is the proof that a public subsidy that has already been disbursed was intentionally used for purposes other than those for which it was granted. What is decisive is not how the subsidy was obtained, but what happened to the subsidy funds after disbursement.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a public subsidy was actually granted and disbursed,
• a specific subsidy purpose was defined, for example, by subsidy notification, subsidy agreement, or guideline,
• the funds were objectively used for purposes other than those approved,
• the use for purposes other than intended actually took place and was not merely planned,
• the accused factually decided on the use of the subsidies or initiated them,
• the use for purposes other than intended is causally attributable to the conduct of the accused,
• which amount was used for purposes other than intended, in particular whether the thresholds of € 5,000 or € 300,000 were exceeded.

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged use for purposes other than intended is objectively ascertainable, for example, through accounting documents, payment flows, account statements, invoices, proof of use, subsidy statements, internal instructions, e-mails, project reports, audit reports from funding agencies, or other comprehensible circumstances.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, there is a use of the subsidies for purposes other than intended. The focus is on the question of whether and to what extent the subsidy was used contrary to the earmarking and whether this can be attributed to the accused.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• the content of the subsidy notification or subsidy agreement, in particular the earmarking,
• the actual payment flows and proof of use,
• the temporal connection between disbursement of the subsidy and use of the funds,
• accounting documents, invoices, and project statements,
• testimony from employees, funding agencies, or project participants,
• internal communication on the use of funds,
• audit reports from funding agencies or control bodies,
• the role of the accused in the decision-making process,
• the extent of the amounts used for purposes other than intended for classification of the qualification.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere formal accounting errors, misunderstandings in the subsidy processing, and cases in which the funds were used awkwardly, but still in accordance with the intended purpose. A distinction is also made between mere civil law recovery cases without criminal relevance.

Accused Person:

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

• whether there is actually a use for purposes other than intended or whether the funds served the subsidy purpose after all,
• whether the alleged subsidy purpose was as clearly defined as claimed by the public prosecutor’s office,
• whether the use was approved or at least tolerated by the funding provider,
• whether she was actually authorized to make decisions or was merely acting in an executive capacity,
• whether the alleged amount was calculated correctly,
• whether several payments were illegally added together,
• whether the use was operationally necessary and project-related,
• Contradictions or gaps in the presentation of the use of funds,
• alternative explanations for the money flows.

She can also present that uses were misleadingly documented, operationally necessary, or incorrectly assigned and that there is no deliberate misappropriation.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in § 153b StGB:

• Subsidy notifications, subsidy agreements, and subsidy guidelines,
• Accounting documents and account statements,
• Invoices, payment instructions, and transfer receipts,
• Proof of use and project statements,
• Audit reports from funding agencies or audit offices,
• Internal e-mails, protocols, or instructions,
• Testimony from employees, managing directors, or project managers,
• temporal sequences that prove the connection between disbursement and use of the funds.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Use of a project subsidy for private expenses: A company receives a public subsidy for the development of a specific research project. After disbursement of the funds, parts of the subsidy amount are used to cover private expenses of the managing director, such as for vacation trips and personal purchases. The subsidies are thus objectively used for purposes other than those for which they were approved. The decisive factor is that the use for purposes other than intended takes place after disbursement and is not merely an incorrect accounting. The result of the offense consists in the actual deviation from the subsidy purpose. Whether the project is later implemented anyway is irrelevant.
• Re-allocation of subsidies within a company: An association receives a subsidy to carry out a social integration project. The responsible project manager uses part of the subsidy funds to finance general operating costs and ongoing salaries that are not covered by the subsidy purpose. Although the money remains in the organizational area of the association, there is a use for purposes other than intended, as the funds are not used for the approved project. What is decisive is that the project manager factually decides on the use of the funds and violates the earmarking. Even the partial re-allocation is sufficient to realize the elements of the offense.

These examples show that misuse of subsidies exists if public subsidies that have already been disbursed objectively deviate from the defined subsidy purpose. The focus of the injustice is not on obtaining the subsidy, but on the violation of the earmarking after disbursement. It is irrelevant whether the funds are used for purposes other than intended only in the short term or permanently and whether an economic advantage is achieved. Only the objectively ascertainable misappropriation of public funds is decisive.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of the misuse of subsidies requires intent with regard to all objective elements of the offense. The perpetrator must know that it is public subsidies that were granted for a specific purpose and that he is using them for purposes other than those approved. He must recognize that the funds are earmarked and that his behavior constitutes a deviation from the subsidy purpose.

The perpetrator must understand that his behavior in the overall picture is a use of public subsidies for purposes other than intended. For the intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the use for purposes other than intended possible and accepts it. An intent beyond that is not required. Conditional intent is sufficient. It is sufficient that the perpetrator willingly accepts to use the subsidies contrary to the earmarking.

The intent must also refer to the actual use of the funds. The perpetrator must at least willingly accept that the funds are not used for the approved purpose, but for other expenses. Likewise, he must recognize or at least consider it possible that there is a direct connection between his decision or action and the use of funds for purposes other than intended.

Furthermore, the intent must relate to the character of the funds as public funding. The perpetrator must know or at least consider it possible that the funds are subsidies from public budgets that are subject to a specific purpose. It is sufficient that he recognizes the subsidy quality of the funds, even if he does not know the legal details of the funding conditions in detail.

An additional enrichment motive is not required. Misuse of subsidies is not a classic enrichment offense. It is sufficient that the perpetrator consciously accepts the improper use.

There is no subjective element if the perpetrator seriously assumes that the use of the funds is covered or approved by the funding purpose, for example, due to a commitment from the funding agency or a permissible project change.

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 uses subsidies is obliged to inform themselves about the funding conditions and earmarking. Especially with public funds, the earmarking is usually clearly regulated. Simply not reading the grant notice, ignorance of the guidelines, or indifference to the requirements is not excusable. Anyone who recognizably acts outside the funding purpose cannot claim not to have recognized the illegality.

Principle of culpability:

Only those who act culpably are punishable. Misuse of subsidies is a deliberate offense. The perpetrator must recognize or at least accept that the subsidies are not used for their intended purpose. If this intent is missing, for example, because the perpetrator seriously and reasonably assumes that the expenses are in accordance with the funding or approved, there is no misuse of subsidies. Negligence is not sufficient.

Incapacity to be held accountable:

No guilt is incurred by anyone who, at the time of the offense, was unable to recognize the injustice of the improper use of funds or to act in accordance with this insight due to a severe mental disorder, a morbid mental impairment, or a significant inability to control. In such cases, a psychiatric report is obtained. This constellation is rare in economic offenses, but not excluded.

Excusable state of necessity:

An excusable emergency situation may exist if the perpetrator acts in an extreme duress to avert an acute danger to life or limb, for example, to bridge existential emergencies in the short term. The behavior remains illegal but can have a mitigating or excusing effect if there was no other reasonable way out. Pure economic difficulties or liquidity problems are not sufficient.

Mistake regarding the funding conditions

Anyone who seriously and reasonably assumes that a particular use is covered or approved by the funding purpose acts without intent. Such a mistake can exclude guilt if it is comprehensible, for example, in the case of unclear or contradictory funding requirements. However, if there is a breach of duty of care, for example, because the perpetrator has not checked the conditions, this can have a mitigating effect on guilt but does not automatically eliminate intent.

Demarcation Putative self-defense:

Putative self-defense is systematically not relevant in § 153b StGB, as it is not a defense offense. Mistakes here do not concern a defensive situation, but exclusively the permissibility of the use of funds.

Extinction of punishment and diversion

Diversion:

A diversion is generally possible in the case of misuse of subsidies, as it is a property and economic offense without direct use of force. In contrast to violent offenses, no personal coercion or physical endangerment is in the foreground here, but rather the improper use of public funds. In principle, this opens up a broader scope for diversionary settlements.

At the same time, it must be taken into account that misuse of subsidies regularly affects public interests and trust in the use of tax money. With increasing damage amount, planned approach or systematic misappropriation, the probability of a diversion decreases significantly.

Diversion may be considered if

• the overall guilt is minor,
• no high amount of funds used for improper purposes is present, in particular the thresholds of € 5,000 and € 300,000 are not reached,
• the act has only insignificant or easily reversible consequences,
• there is no planned, systematic or repeated behavior,
• the facts are clear, manageable and fully clarified,
• the accused is insightful, cooperative and willing to compromise, for example, through repayment or compensation,
• there are no further relevant previous convictions.

If a diversion is considered, the court may order monetary payments, community service, supervision orders or compensation. A diversionary settlement does not lead to a conviction or a criminal record entry.

Exclusion of Diversion:

A diversion is excluded or practically no longer justifiable if

• there is a high amount of funds used for improper purposes, especially in the area of qualifications,
• the act was committed deliberately, purposefully, systematically or in a planned manner,
• several independent subsidies were used for improper purposes,
• there is a longer period of misappropriation,
• the accused shows no remorse or willingness to repay,
• the accusation represents a serious impairment of public interests,
• aggravating circumstances such as concealment, manipulation of accounts or deceptive acts are added.

Especially when exceeding the amount limits of € 5,000 or € 300,000, a diversion in practice is only considered in absolute exceptional cases. With increasing damage amount and degree of organization of the act, the probability of a diversionary settlement decreases significantly.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the extent of the improper use of funds, the duration and intensity of the breach of duty, and how seriously the funding purpose was missed. It is crucial whether the perpetrator acted in a targeted, planned or repeated manner, whether there is concealment or manipulation and whether significant financial disadvantages have arisen as a result of the misappropriation. Particularly important are amount of damage, degree of organization and the role of the accused as a decision-maker.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the act was committed in a planned, systematic or prolonged manner,
• acts of concealment were carried out, for example, through manipulation of accounts, sham invoices or misleading proofs of use,
• there is a significant amount of funds used for improper purposes, especially when exceeding € 5,000 or € 300,000,
• several independent subsidies or several partial amounts were used for improper purposes,
• the perpetrator had a leading role and organizationally initiated or controlled the misappropriation,
• relevant previous convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• a clean record,
• a full confession and recognizable insight,
• an immediate termination of the improper use,
• active efforts to make amends, in particular repayment or comprehensible settlement of damages,
• an error regarding funding conditions, insofar as it was comprehensible and partly due to unclear specifications,
• 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

For the misuse of subsidies according to § 153b para. 1 StGB, a prison sentence of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates is provided. This covers any improper use of a granted public subsidy, regardless of whether the subsidy was originally obtained legally.

The same penalty framework also applies if the act is committed by a leading decision-maker within a company or organization who factually determines the use of the subsidies, even if this is done without the consent of the formal subsidy recipient.

If there is an amount used for improper purposes exceeding € 5,000, the penalty framework increases to imprisonment of up to two years. In these cases, the legislator assumes a significantly increased level of injustice, as not only minor subsidies are affected.

If the act is committed in relation to an amount exceeding € 300,000, the penalty framework is six months to five years imprisonment. This is the qualified form of commission with a particularly high level of injustice and guilt, in which a severe prison sentence is regularly considered.

The amount of the funds used for improper purposes is exclusively decisive for the respective penalty threat, not the amount of the originally approved subsidy as a whole. Partial misappropriation is also sufficient for the qualification if the respective amount limit is exceeded.

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 misuse of subsidies, the fine is expressly provided for as the main sanction. The basic offense provides alternatively to imprisonment of up to six months, a fine of up to 360 daily rates. The daily rate system is therefore central and practically relevant in this offense, especially in the case of lower guilt, low damage and existing compensation. Even in qualified cases, the fine can play an important role in the corresponding sentencing, as long as the legal penalty framework allows it.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 StGB: If the legal penalty threat extends up to five years, the court may impose a short prison sentence of no more than one year instead of a fine. This provision is generally applicable to misuse of subsidies, as the offense expressly provides for a fine in the basic offense and even in the qualified cases, the penalty framework does not exceed five years. A replacement of a prison sentence by a fine is therefore legally possible, especially in the case of low guilt and existing compensation.

§ 43 StGB: A conditional remission of the prison sentence is possible if the imposed sentence does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis. This possibility also exists in the case of misuse of subsidies. In practice, a conditional remission is particularly realistic if the act is in the lower range of the penalty framework, there is no systematic or planned approach, the damage is low and the perpetrator is remorseful and willing to repay.

§ 43a StGB: The partially conditional remission allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally remitted part of the sentence. It is possible for prison sentences over six months and up to two years. In the case of misuse of subsidies, this form can be particularly important if the sentence commensurate with guilt lies between six months and two years, for example, in the case of higher amounts of damage below the highest qualification, without serious aggravating circumstances such as systematicity, concealment or repeated offenses being present.

§§ 50 to 52 of the Criminal Code (StGB): The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance. In the case of misuse of subsidies, these often concern behavior-steering and structuring measures, such as conditions for compensation, for orderly economic management or for participation in consulting measures. The goal is to prevent further improper uses and to ensure a legally compliant use of subsidies.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

The regional court is not automatically always responsible for misuse of subsidies. The amount of the funds used for improper purposes and the penalty framework opened up by it are decisive.

If the accusation is in the basic area, i.e. in the case of lower damage amounts, where only a fine or a prison sentence of up to six months is threatened, the district court is responsible. This covers the cases of simple impropriety without significant economic dimension.

If the accusation reaches an area in which up to two years imprisonment or even up to five years imprisonment are considered, the regional court is responsible. This concerns in particular constellations with significantly increased damage or economic relevance.

A jury court is not responsible for misuse of subsidies, as neither the type of offense nor the penalty threat open up this jurisdiction.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of the offense is generally locally responsible, i.e. where the subsidies were actually used for improper purposes.

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

• the residence of the accused person,
• the place where the accused person was found,
• or the seat of the responsible public prosecutor’s office.

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

Hierarchy of Courts

If a judgment is made, it is not necessarily final. The convicted person or the public prosecutor’s office may lodge an appeal against the decision.

Depending on the type of judgment, an appeal or additionally a plea of nullity may be considered. The judgment is reviewed by a higher court. This checks whether the procedure was conducted correctly and whether the decision is legally correct.

Which type of review is possible depends on whether the district court or the regional court has decided and in which composition the court was active. The jurisdiction of the higher courts is governed by the general rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of misuse of subsidies, the injured public body, such as federal government, state, municipality, funding agency or another state institution, can assert its civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since the offense is directed at the improper use of public subsidies, the claims include in particular the repayment of the amounts used abusively, interest, any incidental costs as well as further financial disadvantages that have arisen as a result of the incorrect use.

Depending on the facts, consequential damages can also be claimed for compensation, for example, if planned projects could not be implemented due to the improper use of funds or additional administrative expenses have arisen.

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

A voluntary and complete repayment of the abusively used subsidies can have a mitigating effect and is essential to consider in diversion and sentencing.

If the damage is not fully compensated, the path to civil proceedings remains open. In this case, the affected funding body or authority can separately sue for its claims before the civil court. The criminal judgment can be used as an important basis for evidence.

In the case of planned actions, high amounts of damage, or systematic misappropriation, subsequent compensation regularly loses weight. In these cases, the compensation can only partially offset 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 misuse of funding concerns the improper use of public funds and directly interferes with public interests and trust in state funding mechanisms. The legal assessment depends crucially on which funding purpose was defined, how the funds were actually used, who decided on the use, and whether a relevant deviation is objectively demonstrable. Even minor differences in the facts can determine whether there is a punishable misuse of funds at all, whether there is only a formal violation, or whether a qualified commission comes into consideration.

Early legal support ensures that the funding purpose is correctly interpreted, the use of funds is properly processed, and exculpating circumstances are presented in a legally usable manner. Especially in the case of complex funding conditions, mixed uses, or project deviations, a precise legal classification is crucial.

Our law firm

• examines whether there is actually a punishable misappropriation or merely administrative irregularities,
• analyzes the funding guidelines, notices, and proofs of use in detail,
• clarifies who was legally and factually responsible for the use of funds,
• assesses the amount of damage and any qualifications in a legally correct manner,
• develops a clear defense strategy that presents the facts and funding logic in a comprehensible manner.

As a criminal law specialized representation, we ensure that the accusation of misuse of funds 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