Seizure pursuant to Sections 110 to 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) is a measure under criminal procedural law by which objects, assets or certain data are provisionally brought under state control if this appears necessary for the investigation. It is admissible only for evidentiary purposes, to secure civil-law claims or to secure property-related orders such as confiscation, forfeiture, extended forfeiture or seizure.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Admissibility of seizure

Seizure directly interferes with ownership and control. For this reason, the law permits this measure only under clearly defined conditions. The decisive criterion under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) is that the seizure appears necessary. This wording means: there must be a concrete factual connection to the criminal proceedings and a reasoned assessment of purpose.

Seizure is permitted exclusively:

• for evidentiary purposes,
• to secure civil-law claims,
• to secure property-related orders.

Property-related orders include in particular:

• confiscation pursuant to Section 19a of the Criminal Code (StGB),
• forfeiture pursuant to Section 20 of the Criminal Code (StGB),
• extended forfeiture pursuant to Section 20b of the Criminal Code (StGB),
• seizure pursuant to Section 26 of the Criminal Code (StGB),
• as well as other property-related measures provided for by law.

The authority may therefore not take action as a precaution or in a blanket manner. It must explain why this specific object or asset is needed for one of these purposes. If this necessity is lacking, the seizure is unlawful.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Specifics relating to data

With data, the law sets an additional limit. For evidentiary purposes, as a rule only specific data or image and audio recordings from public or publicly accessible places may be secured. Entire datasets or comprehensive system copies are not permissible if there is no close connection to the alleged offence.

Order and execution by the Public Prosecutor’s Office and Criminal Police

Jurisdiction is clearly regulated. The Public Prosecutor’s Office orders the measure; the Criminal Police execute it. This separates the legal decision from the operational implementation.

Independent seizure by the Criminal Police

In certain cases defined by law, the Criminal Police may carry out a seizure independently. This applies in particular to:

• objects that are not under anyone’s control,
• objects taken from the victim by the offence,
• objects at the crime scene that were intended for or used in the commission of the offence,
• low-value objects or objects that are temporarily easily replaceable,
• objects whose possession is generally prohibited,
• objects found in the course of a lawful search,
• objects carried at the time of an arrest,
• certain cases in connection with EU-law protection of intellectual property.

In addition, the Criminal Police may secure specific data independently. Here too, however, the obligation of subsequent review and reporting applies.

These independent powers are exceptions. They serve practical operational capacity in acute situations, but do not replace the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s fundamental leadership role.

Replacement by copies and mandatory limits of the measure

Section 110(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) contains an essential protective rule. Seizure for evidentiary purposes is not permissible and must be lifted upon request if the evidentiary purpose can be achieved by less intrusive means.

This means specifically:

• If a copy of documents is sufficient, the original must not be permanently taken away.
• If digital copies or data backups can fulfil the purpose, the authority must choose this means.
• Only where it is to be expected that the original itself must be inspected in the main hearing does taking it remain permissible.

This rule protects businesses, self-employed persons and private individuals from unnecessary economic damage. Seizure is not a punitive measure, but a safeguarding instrument. As soon as the purpose no longer applies or a less intrusive means is sufficient, the measure must end.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Duty to surrender and enforcement by coercive means

Anyone who actually controls objects or assets must surrender them upon request by the Criminal Police.

Control means actual control. Anyone who keeps an item, uses it or can pass it on exercises control. Ownership is not required for this. Tenants, custodians or employees may also be obliged.

The law does not require only handover. Affected persons must also enable the seizure in other ways. This includes, for example:

• making rooms accessible,
• opening containers,
• removing technical access barriers,
• filtering out specifically identified items.

If a person refuses to cooperate, the Criminal Police may enforce the duty. To do so, they may search persons or dwellings. The protective provisions for searches apply mutatis mutandis. These rules relate in particular to the order, procedure and documentation. This keeps the interference controllable and reviewable.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Seizure of data and statutory exceptions

Where data is concerned, the law obliges affected persons to cooperate. The affected person must grant access and provide the specifically requested content in a commonly used file format or have a copy created. This keeps access limited to what is necessary while still enabling the authority to secure evidence.

At the same time, Section 111(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) protects particularly sensitive content. Exempt from this duty to cooperate are:

• data of a communications transmission,
• geographic location data,
• sent, transmitted or received messages.

These data are subject to stricter statutory requirements for interference under other provisions. Seizure pursuant to Section 111 must not be used to circumvent communications surveillance.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Reimbursement of costs for non-accused persons

The law clearly distinguishes between suspects and uninvolved third parties. Anyone who is not themselves suspected of the offence and incurs effort due to the seizure may request reimbursement of reasonable and customary local costs.

Reimbursable costs include in particular:

• necessary working time to separate relevant documents,
• technical services to create copies,
• unavoidable organisational expenditure.

Reimbursement is made upon application. This protects uninvolved persons from financial burdens resulting from state measures.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Confirmation within 24 hours and information on legal remedies

The rule of law requires transparency. For this reason, the authority must provide or serve the affected person immediately or at the latest within 24 hours with a confirmation of the seizure. At the same time, it must inform them of two key rights:

• the right to object on the grounds of an infringement of rights,
• the right to apply for a court decision on lifting or continuing the measure.

The objection enables swift review if someone considers the measure unlawful. Judicial review ensures that an independent body decides whether the seizure may remain in place or must be ended.

If the measure is taken to secure civil-law claims, the authority should, where possible, also notify the victim. This ensures that the victim’s interests are also taken into account.

Section 111 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) therefore regulates not only duties but also clear safeguard mechanisms, compensatory rights and review options. The provision strikes a balanced relationship between effective prosecution and the rights of those affected.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Protection of statutory confidentiality rights

Seizure must not circumvent a legally recognised right of confidentiality. This protection is ensured by Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO).

If the person affected by the seizure or a person present objects to the seizure by invoking a legally recognised right to confidentiality, a special protective mechanism applies. This also applies where that person is themselves a suspect.

The law makes it clear that a confidentiality right may on pain of nullity not be circumvented by seizure. This means that any unlawful inspection or use would be absolutely void.

If the affected person raises such an objection, the authority must:

• secure the documents against unauthorised inspection,
• protect them from alteration,
• deposit them with the court.

Upon the affected person’s application, the deposit is made with the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Public Prosecutor’s Office must keep the documents separately from the investigation file. In both variants, a strict prohibition on inspection applies. Neither the Public Prosecutor’s Office nor the Criminal Police may review the contents until a decision on the permissibility of inspection has been made.

Duty to specify and review procedure

After the deposit, a structured review procedure begins. The authority must request the affected person to specify precisely those parts the disclosure of which would constitute a circumvention of their confidentiality right. The period must be reasonable and must not be less than 14 days.

For preparation, the affected person may inspect the deposited documents. This allows them to indicate precisely which passages are protected.

If they fail to specify, the authority adds the documents to the file and evaluates them. If parts are specified, the following reviews:

• the court, or
• if deposited with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the Public Prosecutor’s Office itself,

involving the affected person and, where appropriate, suitable assistants or an expert, which parts may be added to the file.

Documents that may not flow into the proceedings are returned to the affected person. Findings from impermissible inspection may on pain of nullity be used neither for further investigations nor as evidence. This legal consequence is mandatory.

Objection and suspensive effect

If the Public Prosecutor’s Office orders that certain parts be added to the file, the affected person may object. In that case, the Public Prosecutor’s Office must submit the documents to the court. The court decides whether, and to what extent, use is permissible.

An appeal is available against the court order. This appeal has suspensive effect. While the legal remedy is pending, no one may use the affected contents.

Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) thus creates a clearly regulated, multi-stage protective mechanism. It prevents professional secrecy or other legally protected spheres of trust from being disclosed unchecked in investigation proceedings, while at the same time ensuring that an independent body decides on the scope of the protection.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Protection of classified information held by authorities

In addition to protecting individual professional secrecy, the law contains a separate mechanism for state confidentiality interests. The provision concerns written records or data within the meaning of Section 111(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) where they are within the domain of an authority or public office.

If an affected authority or public office objects to the seizure, a special review procedure applies. The objection must be based on one of two grounds regulated by law:

1. The documents contain classified intelligence information whose confidentiality, in the specific individual case, outweighs the interest in prosecution.
2. The documents contain information classified and transmitted by foreign security authorities or security organisations which may be used for other purposes only with their consent.

If such an objection is raised, the authority must:

• secure the documents against unauthorised inspection,
• protect them from alteration,
• deposit them with the court.

Until a decision on inspection has been made, the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Criminal Police may not review or evaluate the documents. The prohibition on inspection applies strictly.

Duty to specify and give reasons

After the deposit, the court requests the affected authority or office, within a reasonable period of at least 14 days, to specify precisely which parts of the documents are subject to secrecy protection. For this purpose, the authority may inspect the deposited documents.

The objection alone is not sufficient. The authority must additionally:

• in the case of classified national information, set out and justify why the confidentiality interest prevails in the individual case,
• in the case of foreign information, state whether the foreign body has consented to use for the purposes of the criminal proceedings.

The law therefore requires specific and verifiable reasoning. General references to confidentiality are not sufficient.

Court decision and exclusionary rule

If the authority fails to provide sufficient specification or reasoning, the court adds the documents to the file and evaluates them. If it sets out the protected parts, the court reviews, involving the authority and, where appropriate, an expert, which contents may flow into the proceedings.

Documents that may not be added to the file are returned to the authority. Findings from impermissible inspection may on pain of nullity be used neither for further investigations nor as evidence. Any use would be legally void.

Appeal with suspensive effect

The authority or public office may lodge an appeal against the court order. This appeal has suspensive effect. While the legal remedy is pending, no one may use the affected information.

Section 112a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) thus establishes a balanced procedure. It protects state security interests and international confidentiality obligations without excluding judicial control. Ultimately, the court decides which information may be used in criminal proceedings and which must remain confidential.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

End of the seizure and further procedural steps

Seizure is a provisional measure. It must not continue indefinitely. Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) therefore sets out when it ends and how the authorities must proceed thereafter.

Seizure ends in three clearly regulated cases:

1. if the Criminal Police lift it themselves,
2. if the Public Prosecutor’s Office orders it to be lifted,
3. if the court orders an attachment instead of seizure.

An attachment means a formal court decision that an object remains secured for the proceedings. Seizure, by contrast, is only the provisional taking.

Reporting obligation of the Criminal Police

If the Criminal Police have carried out a seizure independently, they must inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office. The law requires immediate reporting, but no later than within 14 days.

If the police lift the measure themselves because the statutory requirements are not met or have ceased to apply, no further step is required.

In certain straightforward cases, they may combine the report with a later report. This is permissible only if:

• no material interests of the proceedings or affected persons are impaired,
• the objects are of low value,
• no one controls the objects, or
• their possession is generally prohibited.

This rule is intended to avoid bureaucracy without undermining the Public Prosecutor’s Office’s control.

Obligation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office in relation to assets

Where assets are concerned that may be seized or used for state claims, the Public Prosecutor’s Office has a clear duty to decide. It must either:

• apply to the court for attachment, or
• lift the seizure immediately if the requirements are not met or have ceased to apply.

This prevents assets from remaining blocked for a longer period without judicial oversight.

Cases without attachment

Not every seizure automatically leads to a court-ordered attachment. If the measure concerns, for example:

• objects that cannot be attributed to anyone,
• low-value or easily replaceable items,
• objects that are generally prohibited,

or if the safeguarding purpose can also be achieved by other administrative measures, then the court does not order an attachment.

In such cases, the Public Prosecutor’s Office decides how to proceed with the objects. It may regulate custody or end the seizure.

Section 113 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) thus ensures a clear time limit and a binding decision chain. Either the seizure ends, or it transitions into a court-ordered attachment. A legally unregulated limbo is not предусмотрed.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Custody, return and deposit with the court

Seizure does not end with mere taking away. Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) regulates who keeps the objects in custody and when they must be returned.

Until reporting on the seizure, the Criminal Police are responsible for safe custody. After this report, the Public Prosecutor’s Office assumes this task. The law thus provides clear responsibility and prevents organisational uncertainty.

Custody does not mean mere storage. The authority must ensure that:

• no alteration or damage occurs,
• no unauthorised access occurs,
• the evidential value is preserved.

As soon as the safeguarding ground ceases to apply, the authority must return the objects without delay. The decisive person is the one in whose actual control the item was at the time of seizure.

If that person is manifestly not entitled, the item is returned to the person actually entitled. If an entitled person cannot be identified without disproportionate effort, the item is deposited with the court. This means the item is held by the court until entitlement is clarified. The affected persons must be informed of this.

The law thus establishes a clear principle: No object may be kept in custody longer than necessary.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Custody of crypto-assets

Digital assets such as cryptocurrencies are subject to a special rule. Section 114(1a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) requires seized crypto-assets to be transferred to an authority-owned infrastructure of the Criminal Police.

This is intended to prevent:

• private wallets from continuing to be used,
• third parties from gaining access,
• assets from being technically lost.

Custody is initially carried out by the Criminal Police. If legal or factual reasons make this necessary, the Public Prosecutor’s Office may order that the police continue custody even after reporting.

This special rule shows that the law responds to modern forms of assets. Cryptocurrencies are structured technically differently from traditional bank balances or cash. For this reason, the law requires secure technical transfer and controlled custody.

Section 114 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) thus completes the seizure framework. It regulates not only access, but also responsible custody, the duty to return, and the handling of digital assets.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

A seizure often affects those concerned without warning. From that moment, one thing matters above all: acting quickly, in a structured manner and with documentation. Legal counsel does not create “more drama”, but rather control over the proceedings. It ensures that interferences with property, data and economic processes occur only where the law truly permits them.

At its core, this is about the right strategy regarding the prerequisites and limits of seizure. This includes reviewing whether the measure was actually necessary, whether it pursued a permissible purpose, and whether less intrusive means such as copies would have been sufficient. Especially with data and records, this delineation often determines whether the seizure remains in place or ends quickly.

A lawyer can in particular:

• review the legal prerequisites for the seizure and prepare the facts in a way that allows later review to be comprehensible,
• set out whether the evidentiary purpose can be achieved by copies, images or excerpts and represent this objectively vis-à-vis the authorities,
• with data, legally assess the permissible scope of interference and work towards limiting it to what is necessary,
• where confidentiality rights are asserted, insist on and support the statutorily provided securing and deposit as well as the review procedure,
• prepare and file legal remedies and applications in connection with the seizure in due time,
• legally clarify issues of custody and release and represent the affected person’s interests in the proceedings.

This is not formalism; it is practical protection. In everyday life, a seizure often blocks work equipment, business records, data storage devices or assets. Those who react too late lose time, money and standing in the proceedings. Those who argue properly early on often achieve a limitation of the measure or a prompt return.

If you are affected by a seizure, the first priority should be legal classification, not improvisation on site.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions