Robbery

According to § 142 of the Criminal Code, robbery occurs when a person takes or extorts a movable object belonging to another person with violence against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb and acts intentionally to unlawfully enrich himself or a third party. The perpetrator combines the attack on property with an immediate attack on the personal freedom or physical integrity of the victim. A characteristic feature is the functional link between violence or qualified threat and the taking or extortion of the object. The particular injustice of robbery lies not only in the interference with property, but above all in the coercion by violence or danger to life. Even the short-term acquisition of actual control over the object is sufficient in the case of robbery.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of the offense covers exclusively the externally perceptible events. Only what a neutral observation, such as by a camera, could record is relevant: actions, sequences, means used and consequences that have occurred. Internal processes such as thoughts, motives or intent are not part of this and are disregarded.

The objective element of robbery requires the taking or extortion of a movable object belonging to another person through the use of violence against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb. The decisive factor is that the perpetrator does not merely obtain the object, but takes possession of it or has it procured under direct personal duress.

The taking occurs when the perpetrator deprives the entitled party of actual control over the object and establishes new control over the object himself or through a third party. Extortion exists when the victim himself takes an action as a result of the violence or threat, through which the perpetrator receives the object. In both variants, it is essential that the object comes under duress into the perpetrator’s sphere of control.

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

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

Forms of robbery

Robbery has different forms, which differ according to the intensity of the violence, value of the object and consequences of the crime.

A milder form exists if the perpetrator commits the robbery without the use of significant force, the crime relates to an object of little value and has only insignificant consequences. In these cases, the element of the offense remains fulfilled, but the injustice is significantly less pronounced. The crime is characterized by a reduced coercive effect and a limited impairment of assets. This constellation leads to a lowered penalty range, as long as there are no circumstances that justify a more severe assessment.

In contrast, a qualitatively increased form exists if the crime is characterized by circumstances that significantly increase the potential for violence or lead to serious consequences. This is particularly the case if the perpetrator acts using a weapon, works together with one or more accomplices, acts as part of a criminal structure, or if the use of force results in serious injuries, permanent damage to health or the death of a person.

If such a situation exists, it is no longer a simple robbery, but aggravated robbery. In these constellations, the basic offense recedes, as the increased level of violence, the massive endangerment of the person concerned or the serious consequences of the crime constitute an independent, significantly aggravated injustice that must be assessed separately.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

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

Object of the Offense:

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

Act:

The act consists either in the taking or in the extortion of the object through the use of violence or by qualified threat. The duress must be directed against a person and enable or secure the acquisition of the object.

Result of the Offense:

The success of the crime lies in the fact that the perpetrator gains actual control over the object and the entitled party loses it. Even a short-term establishment of control is sufficient.

Causality:

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

Objective Attribution:

The success is objectively attributable if exactly that risk materializes that the robbery is intended to prevent, namely that another person’s property is taken away by direct violence or existential threat to a person.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The element of robbery covers cases in which a movable object belonging to another person is taken or extorted by violence against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb. The focus of the injustice lies in the linking of a property offense with direct personal duress. The decisive factor is not only the deprivation of property, but the concrete endangerment of the physical integrity of the victim at the time of the crime.

• § 143 StGB – Aggravated Robbery: Aggravated robbery exists if additional circumstances are added to the basic offense that significantly increase the potential for violence or endangerment or lead to serious consequences. This is particularly the case with the use of weapons, the participation of several perpetrators in an organized form or with serious injuries, permanent consequences or death. In these constellations, simple robbery recedes, as the increased level of violence, endangerment or damage consequences constitute a qualitatively higher injustice that must be assessed independently.
• § 144 StGB – Extortion: Extortion also concerns property damage caused by violence or dangerous threats, but differs in the point of attack of the crime. While in robbery the movable object belonging to another person is obtained directly under duress, extortion is directed at an action, toleration or omission of the victim, through which a financial disadvantage occurs. The financial damage arises here indirectly through the behavior of the coerced person, not through the direct access of the perpetrator to the object. The decisive factor is therefore whether the perpetrator obtains the object himself under duress or whether the victim causes the financial disadvantage through his own actions.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

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

Spurious Concurrence:

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

Multiple Offenses:

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

Continued Action:

A uniform act can be assumed if several acts of coercion and deprivation of property are directly related and are supported by a uniform intent, such as in the case of several accesses within the same plan of action. The act ends as soon as no further acts of coercion occur or the perpetrator abandons his intent.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused has committed a robbery. The decisive factor is the proof that a movable object belonging to another person was taken or extorted from the entitled party by using violence against a person or by threatening with imminent danger to life or limb. The decisive factor is not only the deprivation of property, but in particular the direct duress on a person in connection with the acquisition of the object.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• a taking or extortion actually took place,
• the object was foreign, i.e. not exclusively owned by the accused,
• violence against a person or a qualified threat was used,
• the duress was functionally linked to the acquisition of the object,
• as a result, the entitled party has lost actual control over the object,
• the accused has established new custody himself or through a third party, even if this was only for a short time,
• the interference with property is causally related to the violence or threat.

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged use of force, threat and taking are objectively ascertainable, for example through witness statements, video recordings, medical findings, communication records, crime scene traces or other comprehensible circumstances.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, there is a taking or extortion under duress. The focus is on the question of whether violence or threat directed against a person was used, whether this was causal and functional for the deprivation of property and whether the accused thereby gained actual control over the object.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• Type, intensity and course of the use of force or threat,
• temporal connection between duress and deprivation of property,
• custody relationships before and after the incident,
• witness statements on the course of the act and the participation of the accused,
• Video recordings, medical documentation or other objective evidence,
• Circumstances that indicate an imminent danger to life or limb,
• whether a reasonable average person would assume a coercively triggered surrender or taking.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere intimidation without coercive quality, purely verbal conflicts without present danger, and situations in which the deprivation of property is not based on violence or qualified threat.

Accused Person:

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

• whether violence or a qualified threat was actually used,
• whether the duress constituted an imminent danger to life or limb,
• whether there was a causal connection between coercion and deprivation of property,
• whether the object was handed over voluntarily,
• whether there was only a threat without corresponding intensity,
• whether actual control over the object was established at all,
• contradictions or gaps in the presentation of the course of the act,
• alternative courses of events that could explain the loss of property differently.

It can also demonstrate that actions were misunderstood, situational or without coercive character, or that the requirements of a robbery are not met.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of § 142 StGB:

• Witness statements on the course of the violence or threat situation,
• Video recordings or photos from public or private areas,
• Medical findings or injury documentation,
• Crime scene traces and seizures,
• Communication records before or after the crime,
• Temporal sequences that prove the connection between coercion and deprivation of property.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Taking a wallet under threat of violence: The perpetrator stands in the way of a person on a nocturnal street, blocks the escape route and threatens with immediate physical violence if the wallet is not handed over. Fearing an attack, the victim hands over his wallet with cash and bank cards. The perpetrator thereby gains new actual control over the movable object belonging to another person, while the victim loses control. The decisive factor is that the surrender of the object was forced by the threat of imminent danger to life or limb. The deprivation of property is directly related to the personal duress and thus fulfills the element of robbery.
• Extortion of a mobile phone by physical violence: In a park, the perpetrator pushes a person to the ground and prevents them from getting up. During this time, he demands the mobile phone. To avoid further violence, the victim hands over the device. The perpetrator thereby establishes new custody of the external movable property. It is crucial that the item is not taken secretly or without contact, but is obtained through the direct use of physical violence against a person. Even the short-term acquisition of actual control over the item is sufficient to fulfill the objective element of the offense.

These examples show that robbery occurs when an external movable item is not merely taken away, but is obtained through the use of violence or by qualified threat against a person. The focus of the injustice lies not only in the deprivation of assets, but in the connection of asset intervention and personal coercion, regardless of how long the perpetrator actually keeps the item.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of robbery requires intent with regard to all objective elements of the offense. The perpetrator must know that through the use of violence against a person or by threatening with present danger to life or limb, he is taking away or extorting an external movable item and thereby depriving the entitled person of actual control over the item. He must recognize that the item does not belong to him and that the acquisition takes place without the consent of the entitled person.

The perpetrator must therefore understand that his behavior, in the overall picture, constitutes an asset deprivation forced by personal coercion. For intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the use of violence or qualified threat as possible and accepts it. An intent that goes beyond this is not required; conditional intent is sufficient.

The intent must also relate to the means of the crime. The perpetrator must at least tacitly accept that the violence used has a physical effect or that the threat poses a present danger to life or limb and is suitable to induce the victim to hand over the item. Likewise, he must recognize or at least consider it possible that there is a functional connection between coercion and asset deprivation.

In addition, robbery requires an enrichment intent. The perpetrator must at least tacitly accept to obtain an unlawful financial advantage for himself or a third party through the appropriation of the item, for example by keeping, using, passing on, or exploiting the item. This inner orientation is constitutive for robbery as a property offense.

No subjective element exists if the perpetrator seriously assumes to be entitled to obtain the item or that the victim hands over the item voluntarily and without coercion. The same applies if the perpetrator acts without intent with regard to the use of violence or the qualified threat, for example because he does not recognize its coercive effect on the victim or does not at least tacitly accept it.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Culpability and mistakes

Mistake of prohibition:

A mistake of prohibition only excuses if it was unavoidable. Anyone who engages in conduct that recognizably interferes with the rights of others cannot claim that they did not recognize the illegality. Everyone is obliged to inform themselves about the legal limits of their actions. Mere ignorance or a reckless error does not absolve one of responsibility.

Principle of culpability:

Only those who act culpably are punishable. Intentional offenses require that the perpetrator recognizes the essential events and at least accepts them as a possibility. If this intent is lacking, for example, because the perpetrator mistakenly assumes that their behavior is permitted or is voluntarily supported, at most negligence exists. This is not sufficient for intentional offenses.

Incapacity to be held accountable:

No guilt is attributed to someone who, at the time of the offense, was unable to recognize the injustice of their actions or to act in accordance with this insight due to a severe mental disorder, a pathological mental impairment, or a significant inability to control their actions. In case of corresponding doubts, a psychiatric assessment will be obtained.

Excusable state of necessity:

An excusable state of necessity may exist if the perpetrator acts in an extreme situation of duress in order to avert an acute danger to their own life or the lives of others. The behavior remains unlawful but can have a mitigating or excusing effect if there was no other way out.

Putative self-defense:

Anyone who mistakenly believes that they are entitled to an act of defense acts without intent if the error was serious and comprehensible. Such an error can reduce or exclude guilt. However, if a breach of duty of care remains, a negligent or mitigating assessment comes into consideration, but not a justification.

Extinction of punishment and diversion

Diversion:

A diversion in the case of robbery pursuant to § 142 of the Criminal Code is generally not excluded, but is considered only in narrowly limited exceptional cases. The offense requires the use of violence against a person or a threat of present danger to life or limb and thus regularly exhibits a high degree of personal injustice. This element of violence significantly limits the possibility of a diversionary settlement.

In cases in which no significant violence was used, the item is of minor value, the act has only insignificant consequences, and no serious robbery is present, a diversion can be exceptionally examined. With increasing intensity of violence, higher potential for danger, or targeted action, the probability of a diversionary settlement decreases significantly.

Diversion may be considered if

• the guilt is altogether minor,
• no significant violence against persons was used,
• the act has only insignificant consequences,
• no planned or repeated behavior is present,
• the facts of the case are clear and manageable,
• and the perpetrator is remorseful, cooperative, and willing to make amends.

If a diversion is considered, the court can order monetary payments, community service, supervision instructions, or a settlement with the victim. A diversion does not lead to a conviction or a criminal record entry.

Exclusion of Diversion:

Diversion is excluded if

• a significant use of violence or a serious threat is present,
• the accusation involves a high potential danger to life or limb,
• the act was committed deliberately in a targeted or planned manner,
• several independent acts of robbery are present,
• a repeated or systematic behavior is given,
• particular aggravating circumstances are added,
• or the overall behavior constitutes a serious violation of the personal safety of the victim.

Only in the case of clearly minimal guilt, minimal coercion, and immediate insight can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary procedure is permissible. In practice, diversion in robbery cases is only possible in rare borderline cases and strictly dependent on the specific circumstances of the individual case.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the extent of the asset intervention, the nature, duration, and intensity of the violence or threat situation, and the extent to which the robbery has impaired the personal safety and economic position of the victim. Decisive is whether the perpetrator acted in a targeted, planned, or repeated manner and whether the behavior has caused a significant danger to life or limb as well as a noticeable impairment of assets.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the act was committed under intense use of violence or massive threat,
• a systematic or particularly reckless approach was present,
• a significant financial loss has occurred,
• several objects or economically significant items were affected,
• the act was committed despite recognizable resistance or particular vulnerability of the victim,
• the act was committed in a relationship of proximity, dependency, or superiority,
• or relevant prior convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• Impeccability,
• a full confession and recognizable insight,
• an immediate cessation of the criminal behavior,
• active reparative efforts or damage settlement,
• special stress or overwhelming situations for the perpetrator,
• or an excessively long duration of proceedings.

The court may conditionally suspend a prison sentence if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis.

Penalty Range

For robbery, a prison sentence of one to ten years is provided.

If a less serious case is present, especially if no significant violence is used, the act relates to an item of minor value, and only insignificant consequences have occurred, the penalty range is six months to five years imprisonment.

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 robbery pursuant to § 142 of the Criminal Code, the prison sentence is in the foreground. An exclusive fine is not provided for in the penalty range of § 142 of the Criminal Code. The day-fine system is therefore practically not relevant as the main sanction for this offense.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 of the Criminal Code: If the statutory penalty threat extends up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short prison sentence of no more than one year. This provision does not apply to robbery pursuant to § 142 of the Criminal Code, as the offense exclusively provides for a prison sentence and does not recognize a fine. A replacement of a prison sentence by a fine is therefore excluded.

§ 43 of the Criminal Code: 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 robbery, but is granted much more cautiously, as the offense requires an asset intervention through the use of violence or qualified threat against a person. A conditional remission is realistically possible above all if the act is at the lower end of the penalty range, no significant violence was used, and the perpetrator is insightful.

§ 43a of the Criminal Code: The partially conditional remission allows a combination of unconditional and conditionally remitted parts of the sentence. It is possible for prison sentences over six months and up to two years. In the case of robbery, this form can be particularly important if the sentence appropriate to the guilt lies between six months and two years and no clearly aggravating circumstances are present. It is regularly excluded in the case of intensive use of violence or increased danger.

§§ 50 to 52 of the Criminal Code: The court may issue instructions and order probation assistance. In the case of robbery, these often concern behavior-steering measures, such as violence prevention, contact bans, or structuring programs. The aim is to prevent further criminal offenses and to promote a stable social reintegration.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

For robbery, the Regional Court is in any case competent due to the provided prison sentence. A competence of the District Court is excluded, as the statutory penalty range is significantly above one year imprisonment.

In the standard case of robbery, the Regional Court decides through a single judge. This composition corresponds to the statutory basic competence for criminal offenses with an increased, but not extraordinary penalty threat.

However, if it concerns a less serious robbery, in which especially no significant violence was used, the item was only of minor value, and only insignificant consequences have occurred, the Regional Court decides as a court of lay assessors. In these cases, the law expressly orders an increased judicial composition.

A jury court is not competent in the case of robbery, as neither the lower limit nor the type of penalty threat opens its competence.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of the offense is generally locally competent, i.e., where the violence or threat was used and the item was taken away or extorted.

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

If a judgment is rendered by the Regional Court, it is not necessarily final. The convicted person or the public prosecutor’s office can lodge an appeal against the decision.

Depending on the type of judgment, either an appeal or additionally a plea of nullity comes into consideration. The judgment is reviewed by a higher court. This controls whether the procedure was conducted correctly and whether the judgment is legally correct.

Which type of review is possible depends on how the Regional Court has decided and in which composition it was active. The competence 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 robbery pursuant to § 142 of the Criminal Code, the injured person can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since the robbery is directed at the violent or through qualified threat forced deprivation of an external movable item, the claims include in particular the value of the item, replacement costs, loss of use, lost benefit of use as well as further property law damages that have arisen through the act.

Depending on the facts, consequential damages can also be claimed for compensation, for example if the item was needed for professional or operational purposes and the violent deprivation 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 item, the payment of the value, or a serious effort to compensate, can have a mitigating effect on the penalty, provided that it occurs in a timely and complete manner.

However, if the perpetrator has acted through the use of violence or massive threat, in a planned or repeated manner, or if the act has been connected with a significant coercive situation, a later compensation for damages usually loses a large part of its mitigating effect. In such constellations, a subsequent compensation only partially compensates for the injustice of the act.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Overview of criminal proceedings

Commencement of Investigation

Criminal proceedings require a concrete suspicion, from which a person is considered an accused and can claim all rights of the accused. Since it is an official offense, the police and public prosecutor’s office initiate the proceedings ex officio as soon as a corresponding suspicion exists. A special declaration of the injured party is not required for this.

Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office

The public prosecutor conducts the preliminary investigation and determines the further course of action. The criminal police carry out the necessary investigations, secure evidence, take witness statements, and document the damage. Ultimately, the public prosecutor decides on discontinuation, diversion, or indictment, depending on the degree of culpability, the amount of damage, and the evidence.

Interrogation of the Accused

Before each interrogation, the accused person receives full instruction on their rights, particularly the right to remain silent and the right to legal counsel. If the accused requests legal counsel, the interrogation must be postponed. The formal interrogation of the accused serves to confront them with the accusation and to provide an opportunity for a statement.

Access to files

Access to files can be obtained from the police, public prosecutor, or court. It also includes items of evidence, provided that the purpose of the investigation is not thereby jeopardized. The private claimant’s joinder is governed by the general rules of the Code of Criminal Procedure and allows the injured party to assert claims for damages directly in criminal proceedings.

Main Hearing

The main hearing serves for oral evidence taking, legal assessment, and decision-making on any civil law claims. The court particularly examines the course of events, intent, amount of damage, and the credibility of statements. The proceedings conclude with a conviction, acquittal, or diversionary resolution.

Rights of the accused

• Information & defense: right to notification, legal aid, free choice of defense counsel, translation assistance, and submission of evidence motions.
• Silence & counsel: right to remain silent at any time; if a defense attorney is requested, the interrogation must be postponed.
• Duty to inform: prompt notification of suspicion and rights; exceptions only permitted to safeguard the purpose of the investigation.
• Practical access to files: investigation and trial records; access by third parties is restricted to protect the accused.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical guidance and behavioural advice

1. Maintain silence.
   A brief statement is sufficient: “I am exercising my right to remain silent and will first speak with my defense counsel.”
   This right applies from the very first interrogation by the police or the public prosecutor.
2. Contact defense counsel immediately.
   No statement should be made without access to the investigation files. Only after reviewing the files can the defense assess which strategy and evidence preservation measures are appropriate.
3. Secure evidence immediately.
   You should secure all available documents, messages, photos, videos, and other records as early as possible and keep copies. Digital data must be regularly backed up and protected from subsequent changes. Note down important individuals as potential witnesses and promptly record the sequence of events in a memorandum.
4. Do not contact the opposing party.
   Your own messages, calls, or posts may be used as evidence against you. All communication should take place exclusively through your defense counsel.
5. Secure video and data recordings in time.
   Surveillance videos from public transport, venues, or property management systems are often automatically deleted after only a few days. Requests for data preservation must therefore be submitted immediately to the operators, the police, or the public prosecutor’s office.
6. Document searches and seizures.
   In cases of house searches or seizures, you should request a copy of the warrant or record. Note the date, time, persons involved, and all items taken.
7. In case of arrest: make no statements about the matter.
   Insist on immediate notification of your defense counsel. Pre-trial detention may only be imposed if there is strong suspicion of guilt and an additional ground for detention. Less severe measures (e.g., pledge, reporting duty, contact ban) must take precedence.
8. Prepare reparation strategically.
   Payments, symbolic gestures, apologies, or other compensatory offers should be handled and documented exclusively through the defense. Structured reparation can positively influence diversion and sentencing.

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

Robbery pursuant to § 142 of the Criminal Code combines an asset intervention with violence against a person or a qualified threat. The legal assessment depends decisively on the concrete course of events, on the intensity of the coercion, on the intent as well as on the evidence. Even minor deviations in the facts can decide whether the offense is fulfilled, whether a less serious case is present, or whether a further qualification comes into consideration.

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

Our law firm

• examines whether the prerequisites of a robbery are actually present or another legal assessment is required,
• analyzes the evidence, especially regarding violence, threat, and intent to appropriate,
• develops a clear defense strategy that classifies the course of events completely and legally precisely.

As a criminal law specialized representation, we ensure that the robbery accusation is carefully examined and the procedure is 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