Receiving stolen goods

Receiving stolen goods according to § 164 of the Criminal Code (StGB) exists if someone supports the perpetrator of a property offense after the act in concealing or exploiting the item obtained through the prior act, or in acquiring it themselves. The injustice does not lie in a new attack on assets, but in the conscious safeguarding of the advantage already obtained through the offense. This protects both the assets of the original injured party and the state’s interest in effective prosecution.

The financial damage has already occurred as a result of the prior act. Anyone who buys, takes over, resells, or procures stolen goods for third parties actively contributes to the economic profitability of the property offense. It is precisely this follow-up crime that § 164 StGB is intended to prevent. A prerequisite is always that the prior act has been completed and the receiver was not involved in it.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of receiving stolen goods exclusively covers the externally perceptible events. The only thing that matters is what can be determined through neutral observation, i.e., concrete actions, processes, and objective circumstances. Internal processes such as intent, knowledge, or motives are disregarded and do not belong to the objective element.

The objective element of receiving stolen goods requires that an act punishable by law against someone else’s property has already been committed and completed. The item obtained through this prior act must have been received by the original perpetrator. Receiving stolen goods is therefore necessarily a follow-up crime and begins in time after the completion of the prior act. The receiver must not have been involved in the prior act itself.

The object of the offense is someone else’s movable property that originates from a punishable property offense. It is irrelevant what specific prior act exists, provided that it is an act punishable by law against someone else’s property. The only thing that matters is that the item was obtained through this act.

The act consists objectively of one of the legally specified behaviors. The perpetrator supports the original perpetrator in concealing or exploiting the item, or he buys the item, acquires it, or provides it to a third party. This covers both supportive activities in favor of the original perpetrator and independent acts of access by the receiver.

Concealing exists if the item is removed from the access of the entitled party or the law enforcement authorities. Exploiting is any economic use of the item. Acquiring means obtaining one’s own actual control over the item. Providing to a third party exists if the perpetrator causes another person to receive the item.

The objective element is already fulfilled with the performance of this action. An economic success or a permanent use are not required. Short-term control over the item is sufficient.

Qualifying circumstances

Beyond the basic offense, § 164 StGB provides for objective qualifications that increase the injustice of the act.

A qualified case of receiving stolen goods exists objectively if the value of the concealed item is more than €5,000. The objective market value at the time of the act is decisive. Subjective perceptions of value or later changes in value are irrelevant.

Another qualification exists if the value of the item is more than €300,000. Here, too, only the objective market value is decisive. This qualification is solely linked to the amount of the economic value, regardless of the type and scope of the act.

Receiving stolen goods is also qualified if it is operated on a commercial basis. Commerciality exists if the external appearance of the act indicates that the perpetrator commits the receiving of stolen goods with the intention of repetition and for a certain duration in order to obtain a continuous source of income from it. The objective structure of the activity is decisive, not a mere one-time act.

Another objective qualification exists if the prior act is particularly serious in nature, especially if it is associated with a high penalty. The objective circumstances of the prior act are decisive here, not the internal attitude of the receiver. It is sufficient that the item comes from an act that carries an increased injustice due to its severity.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The subject of the act can be any person who is criminally responsible. Special personal characteristics are not required.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is someone else’s movable property that originates from an act against someone else’s property that is punishable by law.

Act:

The act consists of assisting in concealing or exploiting, in buying, in acquiring, or in providing to a third party.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The element of receiving stolen goods covers cases in which an item obtained through a property offense is concealed, exploited, acquired, or provided to a third party after the completion of the prior act. The focus of the injustice lies in the follow-up crime. Not only is the property of the injured party protected, but also the state’s interest in preventing the economic safeguarding of criminal offenses. The crucial factor is that the prior act has already been completed and the receiver was not involved in it himself.

• § 131 StGB – Robbery by theft: Receiving stolen goods differs from robbery by theft in terms of the time and function of the violence. In robbery by theft, the perpetrator uses after the removal violence or threats in order to secure the loot or enable the escape. Receiving stolen goods only begins after the completion of someone else’s property offense and concerns the subsequent handling of the item already obtained. The receiver was not involved in the removal, but enables the economic safeguarding of the prior act through takeover, safekeeping, or transfer.
• § 144 StGB – Extortion: Receiving stolen goods must be distinguished from extortion in that, in the case of extortion, the financial disadvantage only arises through coercion on the victim’s behavior. In the case of receiving stolen goods, the damage has already occurred as a result of the prior act. The perpetrator does not interfere with the victim’s freedom of choice, but subsequently attacks the item itself and enables its exploitation or concealment.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if in addition to receiving stolen goods, other independent offenses are committed, such as forgery of documents, fraud during resale, or money laundering. The offenses exist side by side because different legal interests are violated and no element completely consumes the other.

Spurious Concurrence:

A displacement comes into consideration if another element completely covers the entire injustice of receiving stolen goods. This is particularly the case with money laundering, provided that the act is exclusively aimed at concealing the origin and integrating it into the legal economic cycle. In these cases, the receiving of stolen goods is superseded.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several independent acts of receiving stolen goods are committed in relation to different items or at different times. Each act forms its own criminal unit, provided that there is no continued act.

Continued Action:

A continued act can be assumed if several similar acts of receiving stolen goods are in close temporal and factual connection and are supported by a uniform intent to commit the offense, such as in the systematic resale of several stolen items within the framework of a uniform sales concept. The individual actions are then combined into one legal unit.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that an act punishable by law against someone else’s property has already been committed and completed and that the accused after the act has concealed, exploited, acquired, or provided to a third party an item obtained through this prior act. The decisive factor is not the renewed damage to the property, but the economic safeguarding or use of the advantage obtained through the offense.

In addition, it must be proven that the accused was not involved in the prior act himself, but only became active after its completion. Receiving stolen goods is a necessary follow-up crime. Participation in the prior act excludes the element.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a punishable property offense was actually committed as a prior act,
• the item was obtained through this prior act,
• the prior act was already completed at the time of the act of receiving stolen goods,
• the accused has concealed, exploited, acquired, or provided to a third party the item,
• the accused was not a perpetrator or accessory to the prior act,
• the item was removed or economically used from the access of the entitled party or the law enforcement authorities,
• between the action of the accused and the exploitation or safeguarding of the item a causal connection exists,
• if applicable, value-relevant circumstances or commercial structures are objectively ascertainable.

The public prosecutor’s office must also demonstrate whether the alleged acts of concealment, exploitation, or transfer are objectively comprehensible and provable.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, an act of receiving stolen goods exists within the meaning of § 164 StGB. The focus is on the question of whether an item obtained through a property offense was purposefully removed from economic use or access after the completion of the prior act.

In addition, the court examines whether the accused acted independently after the prior act or whether his activity is still attributable to the prior act. The distinction from aiding and abetting is central here.

In doing so, the court takes into account in particular

• Type and course of the prior act,
• Time interval between prior act and act of receiving stolen goods,
• Type of item taken over, kept, or passed on,
• Circumstances of the purchase, takeover, or transfer,
• Exploitation channels, sales activities, or transfer of the item,
• Economic use or forwarding to third parties,
• Communication content before and after the takeover of the item,
• Witness statements on the acquisition, safekeeping, or resale,
• Objective traces, evidence, or seizures that indicate receiving stolen goods,
• Structures that suggest recurring or systematic commission.

The court clearly distinguishes between socially adequate actions without reference to receiving stolen goods, mere knowledge of the prior act without action, and cases in which the accused is still to be regarded as a participant in the prior act.

Accused Person:

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

• whether a punishable prior act actually exists,
• whether the item even comes from a property offense,
• whether the prior act was already completed at the time of the action,
• whether she herself was involved in the prior act,
• whether the action was merely accidental, unwitting, or socially adequate,
• whether there was no concealment, exploitation, or transfer,
• whether there was no economic connection to the item,
• whether the item was voluntarily returned or not used,
• whether alleged value or structural characteristics actually exist,
• Contradictions or gaps in the depicted course of events,
• alternative courses of events that could explain the possession or transfer situation.

She can also demonstrate that the action was misunderstood or without reference to receiving stolen goods or that the requirements of § 164 StGB are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of § 164 StGB:

• Witness statements on the acquisition, transfer, or safekeeping of the item,
• Communication records on purchase, transfer, or exploitation,
• Seizures of the item or parts thereof,
• Documents on sale, resale, or economic use,
• Video recordings or photos of transfers,
• Traces that indicate possession or access,
• Connections between prior act and later exploitation,
• Indications of systematic or recurring procedures.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical Example

• Takeover and resale of stolen electronics: After a burglary in an office building, the perpetrator offers the stolen laptops to an acquaintance for purchase. The acquaintance knows that the devices come from a burglary. He takes over the laptops, temporarily stores them in his apartment, and then resells them via an online platform. The decisive factor is that the prior act has already been completed and the receiver was not involved in the removal, but only becomes active after the property offense. By taking over and reselling, he exploits the item obtained through the prior act and secures the economic advantage of the criminal offense. Thus, the element of receiving stolen goods is fulfilled.

This example shows that receiving stolen goods does not only exist in the case of organized resale. Even the conscious takeover and transfer of a stolen item after the completion of the prior act is sufficient to fulfill the element. The type of item is not decisive, but rather that the perpetrator subsequently enables the exploitation or safeguarding of the advantage obtained through the offense.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of receiving stolen goods requires intent with regard to all objective elements. The perpetrator must know that the item comes from an act punishable by law against someone else’s property and that he becomes active after the completion of the prior act by concealing, exploiting, acquiring, or providing the item to a third party.

For intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the illicit origin of the item and his own handling of stolen goods as possible and accepts it. Conditional intent is sufficient. The intent must also relate to the fact that the prior act has already been completed and that he was not involved in it himself.

Furthermore, the intent must be directed towards enabling the economic use or securing of the item obtained through the prior act through his behavior. It is not necessary for the perpetrator to want to achieve an advantage himself. An independent enrichment intent is not a prerequisite for the offense.

For the value qualifications according to § 164 Para. 3 and Para. 4 of the Criminal Code , the intent must also relate to the fact that the item has a significant value. The perpetrator must at least expect that it involves high-quality or particularly valuable objects. The exact value limit does not need to be known to him.

In the case of handling stolen goods on a commercial basis, the intent must additionally be directed towards committing the act not merely once, but repeatedly and systematically, in order to obtain a continuous source of income from it.

There is no subjective element of the offense if the perpetrator seriously assumes a legal origin of the item, if he has no knowledge of the prior act, if he believes in an entitlement of the prior perpetrator, or if he assumes to still be part of the prior act.

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 takes over, resells, or utilizes an item, even though the illicit origin is obvious, cannot invoke having not recognized the punishability. Everyone is obliged to inform themselves about the legal limits of their actions. Mere ignorance or indifference do not release from responsibility.

Principle of culpability:

Only those who act culpably are punishable. Handling stolen goods requires intent. If this is missing, for example, because the perpetrator in good faith assumes a lawful origin, the elements of the offense are not met. Negligence is not sufficient.

Incapacity to be held accountable:

No guilt is attributed to someone who, at the time of the act, was not able to recognize the injustice of his actions or to act according to this insight due to a severe mental disorder, a morbid mental impairment, or a significant inability to control. In case of corresponding doubts, a psychiatric report is obtained.

Excusable state of necessity:

An excusable emergency situation can exceptionally exist if the perpetrator acts in an extreme duress, for example, to avert an acute existential danger. The behavior remains unlawful but can have a guilt-reducing or excusing effect if no other reasonable way out existed. In the area of handling stolen goods, however, this is only conceivable in narrow exceptional cases.

Extinction of punishment and diversion

Diversion:

In the case of handling stolen goods, a diversion is generally possible, since § 164 of the Criminal Code in its basic forms is not threatened with more than five years of imprisonment and thus the formal requirements of § 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be met. Whether a diversionary settlement comes into consideration depends, however, on the severity of guilt, the nature of the offense, and the circumstances of the individual case.

A diversion is particularly considered if

• it involves a one-time incident,
• the value of the item is low,
• no commercial commission exists,
• no particularly serious prior act is underlying,
• the accused is confessing and provides compensation for damages,
• no relevant previous convictions exist.

In such cases, measures such as payment of a sum of money, community service, probation with conditions, or victim-offender mediation may be considered.

Exclusion of Diversion:

A diversion is excluded if

• the handling of stolen goods was committed commercially,
• the value of the item is particularly high,
• the prior act constitutes a serious crime,
• the guilt is to be assessed as severe within the meaning of § 32 of the Criminal Code,
• or a considerable degree of criminal energy is present.

In these cases, a diversionary settlement is not legally permissible. It comes to a formal criminal proceeding with conviction or acquittal.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty for handling stolen goods according to the value of the handled item, but above all according to the nature, intensity, and significance of the exploitation act as well as the concrete effects on the economic securing of the prior act. Decisive is the extent to which the perpetrator has contributed to securing, realizing, or channeling the illicitly obtained advantage into the economic cycle. Mere possession recedes compared to the active exploitation or transfer but remains relevant for the overall assessment.

Of particular importance is whether the perpetrator has proceeded purposefully, systematically, or in an organized manner, whether the act was spontaneous or prepared, and what degree of criminal energy he has displayed. Also, the proximity to the prior act and the significance of his action for the success of the subsequent criminality are central factors in determining the sentence.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the item has a high or particularly high value,
• the act was committed commercially,
• the perpetrator proceeded systematically or in an organized manner,
• several acts of handling stolen goods were committed in a short time,
• the perpetrator has assumed a central role in the sale or exploitation,
• the prior act is particularly serious and the perpetrator was aware of this,
• relevant previous convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• Impeccability,
• an early, comprehensive confession,
• recognizable remorse and insight,
• voluntary surrender of the item,
• active compensation for damages, as far as possible,
• a subordinate participation in the act,
• an excessively long duration of the proceedings.

Due to the tiered penalty threat, the scope for mitigations is differently pronounced. In the case of one-time, non-commercial handling of stolen goods with low value, a conditional remission of punishment with a positive social prognosis may be considered. In the case of commercial handling of stolen goods or very high property value, the scope is significantly limited.

Penalty Range

In the basic form of handling stolen goods, it is about consciously supporting the perpetrator after the act, about concealing or exploiting the item, as well as about buying, acquiring, or passing it on to third parties. Typical cases of subsequent criminality without particular aggravations are covered. In these constellations, imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates is threatened.

If the injustice content increases because the item has a significantly higher value, the law assesses the act as noticeably more serious. The economic damage and the significance for securing the prior act are in the foreground here. In these cases, the law provides for imprisonment of up to two years.

If the value of the item reaches a particularly high level or if the handling of stolen goods is operated systematically as a source of income, a particularly serious form exists. The same applies if the item originates from a particularly serious prior act and the perpetrator is aware of this. In these constellations, imprisonment of six months to five years is threatened.

If the perpetrator acts merely out of need, imprudence, or to satisfy a craving in relation to a low-value item, the law classifies the injustice significantly lower. In these cases, the penalty threat amounts to imprisonment of up to one month or a fine of up to 60 daily rates, provided that no particularly serious prior acts are underlying.

If the prior act lies in the close family sphere, the law takes the personal relationship into account. In these cases, either the prosecution is only permissible with the consent of the injured party or the punishability is completely eliminated.

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 handling stolen goods, a fine is generally permissible and is primarily considered in the basic form and with low injustice content. In the case of commercial handling of stolen goods or very high property values, imprisonment is in the foreground in practice.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 of the Criminal Code: If the statutory penalty threat reaches up to five years, the court can impose a fine instead of a short imprisonment of no more than one year.

This possibility exists in principle for handling stolen goods, as the basic offense is threatened with imprisonment of up to six months or a fine. Also, in the case of value-qualified forms and in the case of commercial handling of stolen goods, § 37 of the Criminal Code can legally be considered, as long as the imposed imprisonment does not exceed one year. In practice, this possibility is primarily used in cases of low guilt, low property value, and lack of prior convictions.

§ 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. In the case of handling stolen goods, this possibility is regularly opened, especially in the case of opportunistic offenders, low offense value, and lack of criminal involvement. In practice, the conditional suspension is frequently granted, provided that no aggravating circumstances such as commercial activity or high sums of damage exist.

In the case of commercial handling of stolen goods or in the case of very high property values, the conditional suspension, on the other hand, is applied significantly more cautiously, since an increased degree of criminal energy is assumed here.

§ 43a of the Criminal Code: The partially conditional suspension 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 handling stolen goods, this possibility comes into consideration if, although a prison sentence appears necessary, favorable perpetrator circumstances exist, such as confession, compensation for damages, cooperation, or lack of prior convictions. In such cases, a short unconditional part can be combined with a conditionally suspended remainder.

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

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

In the case of handling stolen goods, such measures are regularly considered, especially for securing compensation for damages and for avoiding further subsequent criminality. They can be ordered within the framework of a conditional or partially conditional suspension of sentence and serve to stabilize the way of life and the preventive effect.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

In the case of handling stolen goods, the regional court is not automatically always responsible. Decisive is the penalty range, which depends on the value of the item and the nature of the commission.

If the accusation lies in the basic area, i.e., in the case of simple handling of stolen goods with a penalty threat of up to six months imprisonment or a fine, the district court is responsible. Covered are typical cases of opportunistic handling of stolen goods without particular economic significance.

If the accusation reaches an area in which up to two years of imprisonment are threatened, for example, in the case of higher-value items, the regional court is responsible as a single judge. This concerns constellations with a significantly increased property value, but without particularly serious qualification.

If a penalty threat of up to five years comes into consideration, especially in the case of commercial handling of stolen goods, in the case of very high property values or in the case of particularly serious prior acts, the regional court is also responsible. Depending on the concrete design, this can be done in a single-judge or lay judge court composition.

A jury court is not responsible for handling stolen goods, as neither the nature of the offense nor the penalty threat fulfill the requirements for such a composition.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the scene of the crime is generally locally responsible.

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 caught or detained,
• 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

If a judgment is made, it is not necessarily final. Both the accused person and the public prosecutor’s office can lodge an appeal against the decision.

Depending on the court and composition, an appeal and, in certain cases, additionally a plea of nullity may be considered. The superior court examines whether the proceedings were conducted correctly and whether the legal assessment is 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.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of handling stolen goods, the injured party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since the handling of stolen goods concerns the handling of an item obtained through a prior act, the claims relate in particular to the value of the item, to surrender, compensation in case of impossibility, loss of use as well as to further property damage that has arisen through the concealment, exploitation, or transfer.

In addition, consequential damages can be claimed for compensation, for example, if additional economic disadvantages have occurred through the handling of stolen goods that go beyond the original property damage, such as storage costs, reduction in value, lost sales opportunities, or additional expenses for regaining the item.

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

A voluntary restitution, such as the return of the item, the surrender of the proceeds, or the compensation of the damage, can have a mitigating effect on the sentence, provided that it occurs in a timely and serious manner. In the case of handling stolen goods, this mitigating reason regularly has a stronger effect than in the case of violent crimes, since the focus of the injustice lies in the property area.

However, if the perpetrator has acted commercially, systematically, or in knowledge of a particularly serious prior act, a subsequent compensation for damages regularly loses a significant part of its mitigating significance, since an increased degree of criminal energy is present in these cases.

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

Receiving stolen goods is legally complex because the assessment depends significantly on the origin of the item, the perpetrator’s level of knowledge, the time of the action after the initial crime, and the value, type of commission, and possible commercial nature. Even minor deviations in the facts can determine whether receiving stolen goods actually exists or whether a non-punishable constellation is given.

Early legal support ensures that the initial crime, the paths of possession, the intent, and the alleged qualifications are legally classified in a sound manner and exculpatory circumstances are consistently worked through.

Our law firm

• examines whether the prerequisites for receiving stolen goods are actually met or whether a distinction from non-punishable behavior can be considered,
• analyzes the evidence regarding origin, knowledge, value, and type of exploitation,
• develops a clear and realistic defense strategy based on the specific facts.

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

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation