Theft by burglary or with weapons

According to § 129 of the Criminal Code, theft by burglary or with weapons occurs if a person commits theft under § 127 of the Criminal Code and the removal takes place in a qualified manner.
The perpetrator intentionally removes a movable object belonging to someone else by breaking foreign custody and establishing new custody. The qualification results from the manner in which the act is carried out, in particular by burglary, overcoming security measures or by carrying a weapon or an equivalent means. Even the short-term acquisition of actual control of the object is sufficient.

objective elements of the offence

The objective element of § 129 of the Criminal Code requires a theft under § 127 of the Criminal Code. It therefore requires the removal of a movable object belonging to someone else. Removal means that the perpetrator removes the actual control of the object by the entitled party and establishes new custody himself or through a third party, i.e. takes possession of the object and deprives the previous owner of control over it.

In addition, in the case of theft under § 129 of the Criminal Code, there must be a qualified method of commission. Therefore, not only the interference with the foreign power of disposal is decisive, but also the manner in which the act is carried out, which the law classifies as particularly dangerous or intensive.

Even in the case of theft by burglary or with weapons, the short-term acquisition of actual control of the object is sufficient if the entitled party loses control as a result. Permanent possession or later use is not required.

§ 129 of the Criminal Code protects foreign property from particularly dangerous forms of removal and, as a qualification, is linked to the basic offense of theft.

Qualifying circumstances

A theft according to § 129 of the Criminal Code exists in particular if the removal takes place by burglary or overcoming special security measures. This is the case, for example, if the perpetrator breaks into a building, a means of transport, a storage area or another enclosed space, climbs in or penetrates with a copied or illegally obtained key, an unsuitable tool or an unauthorized access code.

Likewise, there is a qualification if the perpetrator breaks open containers, locking devices or access barriers, opens them with appropriate means or deactivates electronic security devices.

A particularly serious form is given if the perpetrator penetrates into a dwelling in this way or if he himself or another participant with his knowledge carries a weapon or an equivalent means in order to overcome or prevent possible resistance from a person.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The perpetrator can be any person responsible under criminal law who takes possession of an object belonging to someone else and thereby deprives the entitled party of actual control. Special personal characteristics are not required.

Object of the Offense:

The object of the offense is any movable physical object belonging to someone else with asset value. An object belongs to someone else if it does not belong exclusively to the perpetrator. Movable is any object that can actually be taken away.

In addition, the removal must take place under the aforementioned aggravating circumstances.

Act:

The act consists of the removal. This exists if the perpetrator takes possession of the object without or against the will of the entitled party and thereby ends his actual control. In the case of theft by burglary or with weapons, the removal takes place by overcoming security measures, by burglary or while carrying dangerous means.

Result of the Offense:

The success of the act lies in the fact that the entitled party loses control over the object and the perpetrator gains new custody. Even a short-term taking possession is sufficient.

Causality:

The loss of control must be attributable to the perpetrator’s behavior. Without the act of removal, the success would not have occurred.

Objective Attribution:

The success is objectively attributable if exactly what this qualified form of theft is intended to prevent is realized, namely that foreign objects are unlawfully removed by burglary, overcoming security measures or using dangerous means.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The offense of theft by burglary or with weapons covers cases in which a theft under § 127 of the Criminal Code exists and the removal takes place in a particularly qualified manner. Here, too, a movable object belonging to someone else is intentionally taken away, so that the entitled party loses actual control over the object and the perpetrator establishes new custody. The focus remains on the removal of the object itself, not on its damage or alteration. The increased injustice results from the manner in which the act is carried out, in particular from entering protected areas, overcoming security measures or carrying a weapon or an equivalent means, not from value limits or special external circumstances.

• § 142 of the Criminal Code – Robbery: Robbery differs from theft by burglary or with weapons in that violence against a person or dangerous threats are used to enable or maintain the removal. While a movable object belonging to someone else is also taken away in the case of robbery, the attack is directed directly against the person of the victim. In the case of theft by burglary or with weapons, on the other hand, overcoming security measures or carrying a means of committing the crime is in the foreground, without the need for violence against a person. If violence is used or threatened against persons, there is no longer theft under § 129 of the Criminal Code, but robbery with a significantly higher penalty.
• § 125 of the Criminal Code – Damage to property: Damage to property covers any intentional impairment of an object belonging to someone else, which worsens its condition or usability. The entitled party basically retains the object, but it is damaged, disfigured or rendered unusable.
  The distinction from aggravated theft is made according to the point of attack: In the case of damage to property, the object remains with the entitled party, its condition deteriorates. In the case of aggravated theft, the entitled party loses the object itself. If damage and removal coincide, for example if an object is damaged and then stolen, damage to property and (aggravated) theft exist side by side, as different legal interests are violated.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

Genuine concurrence exists if further independent offenses are added to the theft by burglary or with weapons, such as damage to property, trespassing or dangerous threats. The theft retains its independent content of injustice and is not displaced. If several legal interests are violated, the offenses exist side by side.

Spurious Concurrence:

Displacement due to specificity may be considered if another offense includes the entire content of injustice of the theft by burglary or with weapons. This is the case, for example, with even further qualified forms of theft, in which § 129 of the Criminal Code is superseded as a qualification.

Multiple Offenses:

Multiple offenses exist if several thefts by burglary or with weapons are committed independently, for example in the case of removals separated in time or with different objects of the offense. Each removal constitutes a separate act, provided that there is no natural unity of action.

Continued Action:

A single act can be assumed if several removals are directly related and are supported by a uniform intent, for example in the case of several burglaries as part of the same plan. The act ends as soon as no further removals take place or the perpetrator abandons his intent.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office must prove that the accused has committed a theft within the meaning of § 127 of the Criminal Code and that the act was committed in a qualified manner under § 129 of the Criminal Code. The decisive factor is the proof that the entitled party has lost actual control over the object and that the accused himself or through a third party has established new custody. In addition, it must be determined that the removal was committed by burglary, overcoming security measures or while carrying a weapon or an equivalent means.

It must be proven, in particular, that

• an act of taking away was actually carried out,
• the object belonged to someone else, i.e., was not exclusively owned by the accused,
• the entitled party has lost actual control over the object,
• the accused has established new custody, even if this was only short-term,
• the removal is causally related to the behavior of the accused,
• a qualified method of commission under § 129 of the Criminal Code exists, for example by burglary, breaking open containers or locking devices, electronically overcoming access barriers or by carrying weapons.

The public prosecutor’s office must also present whether the alleged taking away and the qualifying circumstance are objectively ascertainable, for example, through witness statements, video recordings, cash register data, inventory documents, proof of value, or other comprehensible circumstances.

Court:

The court examines all evidence in the overall context and assesses whether, according to objective standards, a removal exists and the requirements of § 129 of the Criminal Code are met. The focus is on the question of whether the entitled party has actually lost the object, whether this loss is attributable to the accused and whether the qualified method of commission has been proven.

In doing so, the court particularly considers:

• custody relationships before and after the incident,
• type and course of the alleged taking away,
• Type of overcoming security measures or access
• time and duration of the loss of control,
• witness statements on the course of the act and the participation of the accused,
• Video recordings, crime scene traces or other objective evidence
• Circumstances or evidence that prove burglary, overcoming security measures or carrying weapons
• whether a reasonable average person would assume that the object was removed from the entitled party.

The court clearly distinguishes between mere misunderstandings, oversights, temporary transfers of possession or situations without genuine loss of control, as well as cases in which no qualified method of commission exists that meets the elements of the offense.

Accused Person:

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

• whether a taking away has actually taken place,
• whether the entitled party has really lost control over the object,
• whether there was consent, authorization, or intent to return,
• whether the object was only touched or moved briefly without establishing new custody,
• contradictions or gaps in the presentation of the course of the act,
• alternative causes that could explain the loss of the object just as plausibly,
• whether the alleged qualifying method of commission actually exists.

She can also demonstrate that certain actions were misunderstood, accidental or carried out with the consent of the entitled party or that the requirements of § 129 of the Criminal Code are not met, for example because there was no burglary, no overcoming of security measures or no carrying of weapons that meets the elements of the offense.

Typical Assessment

In practice, the following evidence is particularly important in the case of § 129 of the Criminal Code:

• Video recordings or photos, especially of entrances or crime scenes
• Witness statements on the course of the removal and the execution of the act
• Crime scene traces such as damage from forced entry or tool marks
• Access data, electronic logs or lock logs
• Findings of tools, weapons or means that meet the elements of the offense
• Communication records from which planning or execution can be seen
• temporal sequences that show when the object disappeared and who had access.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Removal from a locked vehicle: The perpetrator opens a parked vehicle by smashing a side window and removes a movable object belonging to someone else, such as a bag or an electronic device. The vehicle owner thereby loses actual control over the object, while the perpetrator establishes new custody. The decisive factor is the overcoming of a security measure by burglary. Regardless of the value of the object, there is theft by burglary in accordance with § 129 of the Criminal Code. Even the short-term acquisition of actual control of the object is sufficient.
• Removal while carrying a dangerous means: The perpetrator takes possession of an object belonging to someone else in a store and carries a knife with him to prevent possible resistance from persons. The entitled party loses actual control over the object, while the perpetrator establishes new custody. The fact that the knife is not actively used is irrelevant. Even the conscious carrying of a dangerous means to secure the act constitutes theft with weapons within the meaning of § 129 of the Criminal Code.

These examples show that a theft by burglary or with weapons in accordance with § 129 of the Criminal Code exists if a movable object belonging to someone else is taken away without consent, the entitled party loses actual control and the act is committed by burglary, overcoming security measures or while carrying a weapon or an equivalent means. The decisive factor is the method of commission, not the value of the object or the duration of custody.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of theft by burglary or with weapons requires intent. The perpetrator must know that he is removing a movable object belonging to someone else by depriving the entitled party of actual control over the object and establishing new custody. He must recognize that the object does not belong to him and that the removal takes place without the consent of the entitled party.

The perpetrator must therefore understand that his behavior constitutes a targeted removal of an object belonging to someone else and is suitable to exclude the entitled party from use and disposal. For the intent, it is sufficient that the perpetrator seriously considers the removal possible and accepts it; conditional intent is sufficient.

In addition, the intent must also extend to the qualifying method of commission. The perpetrator must at least accept that the removal takes place by burglary, by overcoming security measures or while carrying a weapon or an equivalent means. It is sufficient that he seriously considers these circumstances possible. Anyone who assumes that he will not overcome any security measures or carry any means relevant to the offense does not subjectively realize the qualifying characteristic.

In addition, this element also requires an intent to enrich oneself. The perpetrator must at least accept to procure an unlawful pecuniary advantage for himself or a third party, for example by keeping, using, passing on or selling the object.

No subjective element exists if the perpetrator seriously believes to be entitled to the removal or denies the qualifying method of commission without conditional intent.

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 is not excluded in the case of theft by burglary or with weapons in accordance with § 129 of the Criminal Code, but is considered much more restrainedly. The offense concerns a qualified theft, in which the manner in which the act is carried out, such as burglary, overcoming security measures or carrying weapons, constitutes an increased injustice. This is regularly associated with an increased risk and injustice moment, which only allows a limited diversionary settlement.

In cases in which the qualified method of commission is only realized at the lower end, the perpetrator acts immediately insightful and the consequences can be quickly and completely compensated, a diversion can nevertheless be examined. With increasing intensity of the execution of the act, targeted action or additional endangerment of persons, the probability of a diversionary settlement decreases significantly.

Diversion may be considered if

• the guilt is minor overall,
• the qualified method of commission is not particularly serious,
• no serious consequential effects have occurred,
• there is no systematic or repeated behavior,
• the facts are clear and manageable,
• and the perpetrator is insightful, cooperative, and willing to make amends.

If a diversion comes into consideration, the court can order monetary payments, community service, supervision instructions or a victim-offender mediation. A diversion leads to no conviction and no criminal record entry.

Exclusion of Diversion:

Diversion is excluded if

• a significant financial loss has occurred,
• the qualified method of commission is clearly and distinctly pronounced,
• the act was committed deliberately, purposefully, or systematically,
• several independent acts of theft are present,
• repeated or systematic behavior is present,
• special aggravating circumstances are added,
• or the overall behavior constitutes a serious violation of third-party property or security interests.

Only in the case of clearly minimal fault and immediate remorse can it be examined whether an exceptional diversionary approach is permissible. In practice, diversion is possible under § 129 StGB, but considerably more limited than in the case of the basic offense and strictly dependent on the specific circumstances of the commission of the offense.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the extent of the encroachment on assets, according to the nature, intensity and dangerousness of the commission of the offense, and according to how severely the deprivation of the item has impaired the economic position or possibility of use of the entitled party. It is crucial whether the perpetrator acted purposefully, deliberately or repeatedly and whether the offense exhibited an increased potential for danger through burglary, overcoming security measures or carrying weapons.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the offense was committed by burglary, breaking open containers or overcoming access security measures,
• a use of weapons or the carrying of an equivalent means for intimidation was present,
• a systematic or particularly persistent approach is discernible,
• significant financial damage has occurred,
• several objects or economically significant items were affected,
• further acts constituting the offense occurred despite clear indications or requests to desist,
• a particular endangerment of persons was given,
• 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 custodial sentence if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator exhibits a positive social prognosis. However, in the case of burglary or offenses involving the carrying of weapons, a conditional suspension is granted considerably more reluctantly.

Penalty Range

Theft under § 127 StGB constitutes the basic offense and is punishable by imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates.

If there is theft by burglary or with weapons, § 129 StGB is to be applied. Such a case exists in particular if the theft

• by burglary or intrusion into a building, a means of transport, a storage area or another enclosed space,
• by breaking open or opening containers or locking devices,
• by electronically disabling an access lock,
• or while carrying a weapon or an equivalent means to overcome or prevent resistance
• is committed.

In these cases, the penalty range according to § 129 para. 1 StGB is imprisonment of up to three years.

If there is a qualification under § 129 para. 2 StGB, for example because a dwelling was broken into or because a weapon or an equivalent means is carried for intimidation or overcoming resistance, § 129 para. 2 StGB is to be applied. The law provides here for a stricter penalty range of six months to five years’ imprisonment. A fine is not provided for in these cases.

Further qualified forms of theft such as serious theft under § 128 StGB, commercial theft (§ 130 StGB) or robbery (§ 131 StGB) lead to the special statutory penalty range being decisive in each case. If several qualifications coincide, the legal classification is based on the respective qualification characteristic and the rules of concurrence. In practice, the provision that most fully captures the specific content of the injustice is then used; a blanket displacement solely because of § 129 StGB is not necessarily mandatory in every case.

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 theft by burglary or with weapons pursuant to § 129 StGB, the fine regularly takes a back seat. Due to the imprisonment ranges provided for, a fine is only considered in exceptional cases, for example in the case of minor fault and at the lower end of the offense under § 129 para. 1 StGB. In the cases of § 129 para. 2 StGB with a penalty threat of six months to five years’ imprisonment, a fine is legally excluded.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 StGB: If the statutory penalty threat extends to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short prison sentence of no more than one year. This possibility therefore also exists in the case of qualified forms of theft, provided that the statutory penalty range permits this.

In practice, however, this provision is applied cautiously, as qualified modes of commission regularly exhibit an increased injustice. An application is primarily considered if the offense is at the lower end of the offense, no particularly aggravating means were used, the damage is minor or has already been compensated for, and no further aggravating circumstances exist.
In the case of offenses with a statutory minimum prison sentence, an application is regularly ruled out.

§ 43 StGB: A custodial sentence may be conditionally suspended if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis. This possibility also exists in the case of aggravated forms of theft. A conditional suspension is granted more reluctantly if the offense was committed deliberately, using special means or with a significantly increased content of injustice. A conditional suspension is realistic above all if the damage has been fully compensated, the perpetrator is remorseful and the offense remains within the lower penalty range.

§ 43a StGB: 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.
This form can be particularly important if the sentence appropriate to the guilt lies between six months and two years and there is no statutory minimum prison sentence to the contrary.

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

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

For theft by burglary or with weapons pursuant to § 129 StGB, the Regional Court is generally responsible due to the increased penalty threat. The area of responsibility of the District Court is exceeded, as § 129 para. 1 StGB provides for imprisonment of up to three years.

If it is a theft under § 129 para. 1 StGB, the Regional Court decides as a single judge. A jurisdiction of the District Court is ruled out.

If there is a theft under § 129 para. 2 StGB, for example by breaking into a dwelling or by carrying a weapon or an equivalent means, the penalty range is six months to five years’ imprisonment. In these cases, too, the Regional Court decides as a single judge, as the statutory penalty threat does not reach the jurisdiction of a lay judges’ court.

A lay judges’ court is therefore not applicable in the case of § 129 StGB.
A jury court is also ruled out, as the penalty threat does not open up any jurisdiction for this form of court.

Local Jurisdiction

The court at the place of removal is responsible. Decisive is where the entitled party lost actual control over the item and the perpetrator established new custody.

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

• the residence of the accused person,
• the place of arrest,
• or the seat of the competent public prosecutor’s office.

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

Hierarchy of Courts

An appeal is permitted against judgments of the Regional Court as the court of first instance.
A plea of nullity to the Supreme Court comes into consideration in the cases provided for by law.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of theft by burglary or with weapons under § 129 StGB, the injured party can assert their civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as a private party. Since this offense also concerns the unauthorized removal of a third-party movable item, the claims relate in particular to the value of the item, replacement costs, loss of use, loss of use advantage and other property law damages that have arisen as a result of the removal.

Depending on the case, consequential damages can also be claimed, for example if the item was needed for professional or operational purposes and the removal 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, provided that it takes place in a timely and complete manner.

However, if the perpetrator has acted purposefully, deliberately or using the aggravating modes of commission typical of § 129 StGB, a later compensation for damages generally loses a large part of its mitigating effect. In such constellations, a subsequent compensation only partially compensates for the injustice of the offense.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Overview of criminal proceedings

Commencement of Investigation

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

Police and Public Prosecutor’s Office

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

Interrogation of the Accused

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

Access to files

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

Main Hearing

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

Rights of the accused

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

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical guidance and behavioural advice

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

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

The theft by burglary or with weapons pursuant to § 129 StGB is based on the basic offense of theft, but focuses on a particularly aggravating type of commission of the offense. The legal assessment depends essentially on whether the alleged mode of commission actually exists and is demonstrable. Even minor deviations in the course of events can be decisive.

An early legal assistance ensures that the accusation, evidence and qualification characteristics are legally correctly classified.

Our law firm

• examines whether the prerequisites for theft by burglary or with weapons are actually met,
• analyzes the evidentiary situation regarding the alleged mode of commission,
• develops a clear defense strategy based on the specific facts.

As a representation specializing in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation under § 129 StGB is carefully examined and the proceedings are conducted on a reliable factual basis.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation