Threat of Harm

The dangerous threat according to § 107 StGB refers to any announcement of a significant harm that is objectively capable of instilling justified fear in an average person and inducing them to a specific behavior. The core of the offense lies in generating serious anxiety, which noticeably impairs freedom of decision and creates a situation in which the victim must realistically expect the threatened consequence. Typical means of threat include the announcement of violence, severe mistreatment, significant economic disadvantages, or an attack on physical or psychological integrity. Crucial is the objective seriousness of the threat, not the subjective intent of the perpetrator to actually carry it out. The norm protects inner peace and the free conduct of life, drawing the line where psychological pressure constitutes an unreasonable burden.

objective elements of the offence

The objective elements of the offense of § 107 StGB Dangerous Threat encompass any outwardly discernible act by which a person holds out a significant harm to another that, according to general life experience, is capable of causing fear and apprehension. The announcement must be such that it can give rise to serious concern in the victim, regardless of whether the perpetrator actually intends or is able to carry out the threat. The norm protects freedom of decision and applies where a person is psychologically pressured by the prospect of a severe disadvantage.

Any situation in which a perpetrator threatens harm that is objectively capable of causing a significant impairment of inner peace constitutes the elements of the offense. The perpetrator’s internal motivation remains irrelevant. Only the external circumstances and the objective effect of the threatening behavior are decisive. The victim’s actual fear is not required. Solely decisive is the objective suitability of the threat to build psychological pressure.

This particularly includes announcements of violence, crimes against life or limb, significant financial damage, or other serious disadvantages that, according to general life experience, are to be taken seriously. The threat can be explicit, implicit, or through conclusive behavior, provided it objectively and understandably announces a serious impairment.

Steps of legal assessment

Perpetrator:

The perpetrator can be any person who announces a significant harm or is involved in its announcement. This also includes persons who pass on, approve, or support threats in their own name, provided they outwardly convey the threatening behavior.

Object of the Offense:

The victim is any person to whom the threat is directed or who is objectively affected by it. Protected is free will formation, i.e., the ability to make decisions without fear of severe disadvantages.

Act:

Any behavior by which a significant harm is held out is objectively covered by the elements of the offense. The threat must be capable of causing fear and apprehension and thereby impairing free will formation.

Typical manifestations of the offense are:

Threat of physical violence

Announcement of blows, mistreatment, or other physical impacts capable of causing bodily harm or pain.

Threat of a crime against life or limb

These include, in particular:

• Threat of killing,
• Threat of severe bodily harm,
• Threat of dangerous assaults.

These threats regularly fulfill the requirements of the offense, as they concern the most valuable legal interests of life or limb.

Threat of breaking off or withdrawing family contacts

A legally explicitly named means of coercion. Threats such as the following are covered:

• complete exclusion from the family,
• Loss of central family support,
• social or economic exclusion within the family network.

These means are typically suitable for building up considerable psychological pressure.

Threat of significant financial disadvantages

Announcement of damage that could severely impair one’s economic livelihood, such as:

• Destruction of significant assets,
• significant financial disadvantages,
• economic ruin.

Threat of other serious disadvantages

These include disadvantages that are significantly impactful socially, professionally, or personally, such as:

• massive professional interference,
• reputational damage threatening one’s livelihood,
• social ruin.

Always decisive is the objective suitability to cause serious concern in the victim.

Threat by implied conduct

Non-verbal actions also fulfill the elements of the offense if they objectively and unequivocally announce a serious harm. These include, for example:

• threatening gestures,
• the demonstrative display of a weapon,
• actions that, in their overall appearance, convey a serious threat.

Result of the Offense:

A separate success of the offense is not required. It is sufficient that the threat was uttered and is objectively capable of causing fear and apprehension. The actual intimidation of the victim plays no role in the completion of the offense.

Causality:

Causal is any act without which the threat would not have been uttered or not in this form. Indirect or supportive contributions can also be causal if they reinforce or enable the threatening behavior.

Objective Attribution:

The behavior is objectively attributable if the perpetrator has created or increased a legally disapproved danger to freedom of decision and this danger materializes in the threat.

Mere expressions of displeasure, brief emotional reactions, or recognizably harmless exaggerations are not sufficient. From the perspective of an objective observer, the threat must appear serious, grave, and significant.

Qualifying circumstances

Paragraph 2 of § 107 StGB covers particularly severe forms of dangerous threat. These include threats of killing, severe mutilation, abduction, arson, particularly dangerous means, or the destruction of economic existence.

A qualified case also exists if someone is kept in a tormenting state by such threats over a longer period. In these situations, the penalty framework increases because the threat has a particularly intimidating and burdensome effect.

Paragraph 3 further extends criminal liability to cases of § 106 para. 2 StGB . This also covers situations in which the dangerous threat results in suicide or an attempted suicide by the threatened person or another affected person. In these particularly severe cases, the penalty framework provided therein applies, ranging from one to ten years of imprisonment.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Distinction from other offences

The elements of the offense of dangerous threat according to § 107 StGB are present when a person announces a significant harm to another that, by its nature, is capable of causing fear and apprehension and impairing free will formation. Decisive is an intense, outwardly discernible pressure, generated by the prospect of a serious disadvantage, which profoundly disturbs the inner peace of the affected person. The focus is not on arbitrary influence, but on a qualified act of threatening that directly attacks the psychological freedom of the affected person under the threat of a significant harm.

• § 105 StGB – Coercion: Simple coercion constitutes the basic offense. § 107 StGB is applicable when the means used consists exclusively of the threatened infliction of significant harm. If the threat is used to compel an action, toleration, or omission, then § 105 and § 107 apply concurrently. The dangerous threat does not supersede coercion; rather, it can establish a qualified situation of coercion.
• § 106a StGB – Forced Marriage: The dangerous threat is an independent offense and does not require marriage or intent to leave the country. § 106a StGB, however, requires that the threat is specifically aimed at inducing a person to marry or to leave the country. Where a threat is punishable but there is no specific relation to marriage, § 107 StGB remains applicable. However, if the threat is used to compel a marriage, § 106a StGB takes precedence as a special norm.

Concurrences:

Genuine Concurrence:

True concurrence exists when additional independent offenses accompany the dangerous threat, such as deprivation of liberty, bodily harm, property damage, coercion, or offenses related to abduction or transfer abroad. § 107 StGB does not supersede other offenses but regularly stands independently alongside them. If actual compulsion to act is also generated, threat and coercion can be realized concurrently.

Spurious Concurrence:

Supersession according to the principle of specialty is only considered if a more specific norm fully covers the threatened impact. This is the case, for example, with § 106a StGB when the threat directly serves to compel a marriage. In such cases, § 107 StGB recedes. In all other constellations, the dangerous threat remains an independent wrong.

Multiple Offenses:

Whoever threatens several persons at different times or in several separate incidents, or separately holds out harm to them, commits several independent offenses. The individual threatening situations are to be assessed separately if they arise independently of each other.

Continued Action:

A prolonged threatening situation constitutes a single offense as long as the threat is maintained without significant interruption and the same purpose is pursued, such as the intimidation or psychological control of the victim. The offense ends as soon as the threat ceases or the purpose of the continued influence is abandoned.

Burden of proof and evaluation of evidence

Public Prosecutor’s Office:

The public prosecutor’s office bears the burden of proof for the existence of a dangerous threat within the meaning of § 107 StGB. In particular, it must prove that the accused announced a significant harm that, by its nature, is capable of causing fear and apprehension. It must be demonstrated that the threat was objectively serious, outwardly discernible, and capable of impairing the victim’s psychological integrity or freedom of decision.

Proof is required that

• a qualified means of threat was used,
• this means of threat was objectively capable of exerting significant pressure,
• the threat was not merely an impulsive, meaningless, or clearly harmless statement.

The public prosecutor’s office must also establish that there is a causal link between the threat and the resulting state of fear or apprehension. It is crucial that the threatened person realistically had to fear a significant disadvantage due to the announcement of a severe harm.

Court:

The court evaluates all evidence in its overall context and excludes unsuitable or unlawfully obtained evidence. It assesses whether the announced act was, by objective standards, capable of causing serious concern, fear, or apprehension in the victim.

It determines whether an offense-specific intimidation effect exists, which confirms the objective suitability of the threat. In doing so, the court considers:

• content and seriousness of the threat,
• linguistic, contextual, or non-verbal accompanying circumstances,
• personality traits and situational stress of the victim, insofar as they allow conclusions on how the threat must be objectively classified,
• the question of whether a reasonable average person would feel significantly intimidated by the announced harm.

The court must also examine whether the perpetrator’s behavior goes beyond mere expressions of displeasure, everyday conflict statements, or trivial threatening gestures, and actually reaches the realm of punishable intensity of threat.

Accused Person:

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

• the seriousness of the threat,
• the objective suitability to cause fear,
• the intelligibility of the statement in the specific context,
• the causal significance of the statement for the alleged fear or apprehension,
• contradictory statements by the threatened person,
• gaps or weaknesses in documents, records, or expert opinions.

They can introduce the overall circumstances indicating that the behavior was not meant seriously, exaggerated, uttered spontaneously in the situation, or objectively unsuitable to announce a significant harm.

Typical Assessment

For § 107 StGB, the following evidence is regularly relevant:

• digital messages, chat histories, emails, or voice messages,
• video or audio recordings documenting verbal or conclusive threatening acts,
• surveillance and location data verifying the context of the threat,
• non-verbal threat signals, such as the demonstrative display of weapons or dangerous objects,
• witness statements confirming the seriousness or intimidating nature of the threat,
• medical or psychological findings that make the victim’s psychological state after the threat comprehensible,
• objective traces or preparatory acts that make the threatened act appear plausible (e.g., procurement of dangerous means).

In more complex cases, expert assessments or opinions may be required to appropriately classify the actual intimidation effect and the victim’s stress reactions.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Practical example

• Threat of severe mistreatment: After an altercation, a perpetrator says to the other person: “If you say anything again, I’ll put you in the hospital.” The announcement of significant physical violence constitutes a serious harm and is objectively capable of causing fear and apprehension. The threat fulfills the prerequisites for a dangerous threat regardless of whether the perpetrator actually planned to carry it out.
• Threat by implied conduct: A person approaches another closely, visibly places their hand on a knife at their belt, and says in a calm voice: “Think carefully about what you do now.” The combination of gestures, proximity, and verbal insinuation objectively conveys the announcement of a serious harm and fulfills the elements of the dangerous threat.

These examples show that a dangerous threat is realized wherever a perpetrator seriously holds out a significant harm that is objectively capable of causing fear and apprehension. Decisive is the intensity of the announced disadvantage and its outward effect; it remains irrelevant whether the threat is actually carried out later.

subjective elements of the offence

The subjective element of § 107 StGB requires intent. This means that the perpetrator must understand that their behavior has the character of a serious threat and is objectively capable of causing fear or unrest in the victim. They must therefore know or at least seriously reckon with the fact that their words or their conclusive behavior will be perceived as an announcement of a significant evil. In doing so, the perpetrator consciously sets a psychological pressure mechanism in motion or at least accepts this effect.

It is necessary for the perpetrator to recognize that the evil they have announced is to be classified as serious according to general experience, such as violence, significant injuries, economic ruin or other serious disadvantages in accordance with paragraph 2. It is sufficient for them to consider the intimidating effect of their statement as possible and to come to terms with this possibility. A targeted intention is not necessary; typically, conditional intent is sufficient, i.e. consciously accepting the victim’s fear reaction.

There is no intent if the perpetrator seriously assumes that their statement cannot be understood as a threat. This concerns cases in which they believe that the statement was meant as a joke, symbolic or obviously meaningless and assume that this is clearly recognizable to the other party. Anyone who mistakenly assumes that their words could not cause fear or that the victim does not take the statement seriously does not fulfill the subjective element of the offense.

Ultimately, what is decisive is that the perpetrator either consciously strives for the intimidating effect of their threat or at least accepts it as a matter of course. Anyone who knows or accepts that their announcement of a significant evil impairs the victim’s inner peace and freedom of decision acts intentionally and fulfills the subjective element of the dangerous threat in accordance with § 107 StGB.

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 generally possible in the case of dangerous threats, but realistic only in exceptional cases. The offense requires the announcement of a significant evil that is objectively capable of causing fear and unrest. Such threats usually establish a significantly increased guilt, which is why a diversionary settlement can only be considered if the threatening behavior is at the lower end of the intensity or the guilt is exceptionally low.

Diversion may be considered if

• the guilt of the perpetrator is minor,
• the threat was only expressed in a weakened or situational manner,
• the victim was not permanently or significantly intimidated,
• there was no systematic or long-term pressure situation,
• the facts are clear and manageable,
• and the perpetrator is immediately cooperative.

If a diversion is considered, the court may order payments, community service or victim-offender mediation. A diversion does not lead to a conviction and no entry in the criminal record.

Exclusion of Diversion:

Diversion is excluded if

• a threat was made with a particularly serious evil,
• a qualified means of threat according to paragraph 2 was used,
• the victim was massively intimidated for a long period of time or kept in an agonizing state,
• the threat was part of an ongoing or systematic exertion of pressure,
• a significant disadvantage has occurred,
• or the behavior as a whole constitutes a serious violation of inner freedom.

Only in the case of minimal guilt and immediate remorse can it be examined whether there is an exceptional case. In practice, diversion in the case of dangerous threats remains a limited, but not excluded option.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Sentencing and consequences

The court assesses the penalty according to the severity of the threatened evil, the intensity and seriousness of the threat and the specific effects the threat had on the victim. It is decisive whether the perpetrator used a particularly incriminating means, such as a threat to kill, the announcement of serious injuries, a threat of kidnapping or the threat of destruction of economic existence, and whether this means was used deliberately, repeatedly or to an increased extent. It is also relevant how sustainably the threat has impaired the victim’s inner peace, security and way of life.

Aggravating Factors Exist in Particular If

• the threat concerns a particularly serious evil,
• the victim was exposed to a sustained pressure situation for a long period of time,
• the threat seems realistic, immediate and penetrating,
• a qualified means of threat according to paragraph 2 was used,
• violence or aggressive accompanying behavior has intensified the threat,
• a serious personal or social disadvantage has occurred,
• or relevant previous convictions exist.

Mitigating Factors Include

• a clean record,
• a full confession and demonstrable remorse,
• an immediate end to the threatening situation,
• serious efforts at restitution,
• an exceptional psychological stress situation for the perpetrator,
• or excessively long proceedings.

The court may conditionally suspend a prison sentence if it does not exceed two years and the perpetrator has a positive social prognosis. This also applies to dangerous threats, provided that there are no particularly serious qualifying circumstances.

Penalty Range

The dangerous threat is punished in the basic offense with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine of up to 720 daily rates. The legislator assesses the serious announcement of a significant evil as a significant interference with a person’s inner security and peace. The threat must be capable of causing fear or unrest; this basic offense forms the starting point of the penalty.

For particularly burdensome cases, paragraph 2 of § 107 StGB provides for an increased penalty of up to three years’ imprisonment. This increased penalty applies in particular if particularly serious evils are threatened, such as homicide, significant mutilation, kidnapping, arson, dangerous means or the destruction of economic existence, or if a person is kept in an agonizing state for a long period of time by such threats.

According to paragraph 3 of the dangerous threat, in the cases of § 106 paragraph 2, the penalty provided there is to be applied. This extends up to 10 years if the dangerous threat is realized in the context of serious coercion. Thus, constellations in which the threat is used as a means of serious coercion can lead to a significantly increased penalty.

A later de-escalation of the threat or a retraction by the perpetrator does not change the legal penalty. Such circumstances can only be taken into account in the context of sentencing, but do not affect the legal classification of the act.

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 day-fines – at least 4 euros, at most 5,000 euros 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 dangerous threats, a fine is regularly considered, provided that the threat is not qualified and there are no particularly serious circumstances. Especially in the case of one-off, situational or less intensive threatening acts, the court often decides on a fine because it adequately reflects the injustice. Only in the case of qualified or longer-lasting threats does the imprisonment move more strongly into the foreground.

Imprisonment and (partially) suspended sentence

§ 37 StGB: If the legal penalty extends up to five years, the court may impose a fine instead of a short prison sentence of no more than one year. This possibility also exists in the case of dangerous threats, as the basic offense provides for a fine or imprisonment of up to one year and, in qualified cases, imprisonment of up to three years is possible. In practice, however, § 37 StGB is applied cautiously if the means of threat is particularly serious or the threat had a significant intimidating effect. In less intensive cases, however, § 37 StGB can certainly be used.

§ 43 StGB: A prison sentence can 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 dangerous threats. However, it is granted less frequently if qualifying circumstances according to paragraph 2 are present or the threat was of considerable intensity. A conditional suspension is particularly realistic if the threatened evil weighs less heavily, the threat was expressed situationally or the victim has not suffered any lasting psychological damage.

§ 43a StGB: The partially conditional suspension allows a combination of an unconditional and a conditional part of a prison sentence. It is possible for penalties between more than six months and up to two years. Since penalties in the upper range of the penalty framework can be imposed in the case of dangerous threats and in particular in qualified cases according to paragraph 2, a partially conditional suspension is fundamentally possible. In cases with particularly serious threatening content or longer intimidation, however, it is applied much more cautiously.

§§ 50 to 52 StGB: The court can additionally issue instructions and order probation assistance. In particular, contact bans, anti-violence programs, compensation for damages or therapeutic measures are considered. The goal is a stable legal probation and the avoidance of further threatening situations. In the case of dangerous threats, there is a particular focus on the protection of the person concerned and the binding prevention of further threatening acts.

Jurisdiction of the courts

Subject-matter Jurisdiction

For the simple form of dangerous threat, the district court is generally responsible, because the penalty framework only extends to one year of imprisonment or a fine.

However, as soon as there is a qualified threat, i.e. a threat with particularly serious evils such as homicide, serious injury, kidnapping, arson or economic destruction, the regional court as a single judge is responsible. This form exceeds the intervention threshold of the district court.

If there is a threat that is part of a serious coercion and triggers a corresponding serious consequence such as a suicide attempt, the regional court decides as a court of lay assessors, as the possible penalty is significantly increased and thus requires a higher panel jurisdiction.

A jury court is not provided for because no variant of the dangerous threat allows for a life sentence and thus the legal requirements are not met.

Local Jurisdiction

The court of the place of offense has jurisdiction. Particularly relevant is

• where the threat was uttered
• where the person concerned perceived the threat
• where the intimidating effect occurred
• or where accompanying actions were taken that are part of the threatening event

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 to the Higher Regional Court is possible against judgments of the Regional Court. Decisions of the Higher Regional Court can then be challenged by means of a plea of nullity or further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Civil claims in criminal proceedings

In the case of dangerous threats, the victim themselves or close relatives can assert civil law claims directly in the criminal proceedings as private parties. Since the act is often based on a serious announcement of a significant evil and triggers a noticeable psychological burden, pain and suffering, costs of psychological care, loss of earnings and compensation for further emotional or health consequences are regularly at stake.

The private party joinder suspends the statute of limitations for all asserted claims as long as the criminal proceedings are pending. Only after a legally binding conclusion does the limitation period begin to run again, insofar as the claim has not been fully awarded.

Voluntary reparation for damages, such as a sincere apology, financial compensation, or active support for the affected person, can have a mitigating effect on the sentence, provided it is timely, credible, and complete.

However, if the perpetrator has threatened with a particularly serious evil, used a qualified threatening content, massively intimidated the person for a long period of time or created a particularly stressful psychological coercive situation, a later compensation usually largely loses its mitigating effect. In such cases, a subsequent settlement cannot decisively relativize the injustice committed.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

Overview of criminal proceedings

• tart of investigation: formal suspect status upon concrete suspicion; from that point onward, full rights of the accused apply.
• Police / Public Prosecutor: the public prosecutor directs the proceedings, the criminal police conduct the investigation; objective: dismissal of the case, diversion, or indictment.
• Interrogation of the accused: prior instruction on rights; involvement of a defense attorney leads to postponement; right to remain silent remains unaffected.
• Access to the case file: available at the police, public prosecutor’s office, or court; also includes evidence items (insofar as the purpose of the investigation is not jeopardized).
• Main hearing: oral taking of evidence and judgment; decision on civil claims joined to the criminal proceedings.

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.
   Obtain medical reports; take photographs with date and scale and, where appropriate, X-ray or CT images. Store clothing, objects, and digital records separately. Prepare a witness list and contemporaneous recollection notes within two days at the latest.
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 compensation for damages strategically.
   Payments or offers of reparation should be handled and documented exclusively through defense counsel. Structured compensation for damages has a positive effect on diversion and sentencing.

Your Benefits with Legal Assistance

Cases of dangerous threats concern interventions in the inner security, the personal peace and the psychological integrity of a person. What is decisive is whether the threat was actually capable of causing fear or unrest and of creating a serious burden on the victim. Even small differences in the course of events, in the intensity or in the personal situation can significantly change the legal assessment.

Early legal representation ensures that evidence is fully collected, statements are correctly classified and both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances are carefully examined. Only a structured analysis shows whether there is really a dangerous threat in the sense of the law or whether statements have been exaggerated, misunderstood or placed in a false context.

Our law firm

• examines whether the threat really reaches the legal threshold,
• analyzes messages, statements and processes for ambiguities and contradictions,
• protects you from hasty assessments and one-sided interpretations,
• and develops a clear defense strategy that presents the actual course of events in a comprehensible manner.

As specialists in criminal law, we ensure that the accusation of dangerous threats is examined legally precisely and that the proceedings are conducted on a complete and balanced factual basis.

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation

FAQ – Frequently Asked Questions

Select Your Preferred Appointment Now:Free initial consultation