Handling stolen goods

Under stolen goods means the offense of trafficking in things that have been stolen or embezzled from another and are not owned by the actor.

The fencing is the most important connection to a previously committed offense directed against property offense, particularly to a theft. The essence of fencing is to maintain a wrongful ownership position on the obtained by the predicate offense thing. The fencing will be punished, because the willingness of fences to gain loot, sell it, or sell to help others creates an incentive to commit property crimes. The fencing is therefore a so-called risk assets offense. Receiving stolen goods is only one thing, not to claims or data possible.

A related with receiving stolen property offense is the control receiving stolen property.

Facts

The stolen goods is regulated in the German criminal law in § 259 of the Criminal Code. The attempt of receiving stolen goods is a criminal offense in Germany, § 259 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Code. Two qualifying offenses ( § 260 and § 260a StGB) exist for the commercial and the band receiving stolen property.

Predicate offense of receiving stolen property can be any illegal acts directed against property deed.

-Suitable object of the crime is any thing that has become a Vortäter. This includes unclaimed property ( "purchase or sales help gewilderter by the Vortäter animals" ) or things that belong to the fence itself ( " fence own, but repossessed by a third party things that took away the Vortäter by mortgage and return" ). Even land can be the subject of stolen goods.

Basically, the stolen goods prepared in accordance with German law in two scenarios (which are identified by law in four acts) is:

By 1975, for receiving stolen goods was also offense to conceal its advantage because a certificate from an appropriate predicate offense thing. The concealment or disguise of such a thing is covered, inter alia, money laundering today.

With regard to the intent enrichment purpose in fence must also exist. This enrichment intention may be for others, but not for the Vortäter.

Special cases

• The demarcation of the connection offenses ( favoring, obstruction of justice, receiving stolen goods and money laundering ) regularly falls hard. More often, the question arises whether the fence has not yet committed aid for the predicate offense. Aid after the completion of the substantive predicate offense ( ie after the prey backup ) is no longer possible, then grab the connector offenses. The law takes already at the completion of the predicate offense. When receiving stolen goods is even represented by an isolated opinion that the predicate offense and receiving stolen goods can be committed at the same time.
• The problem is the replacement fencing. Since the law requires that the secret to end estate was acquired by the illegal act, no room for a punishment remains, when the matter is replaced by another ( replacement item or surrogate ). This does not apply if this surrogate was again obtained in criminal ways.
• Basically, receiving stolen property requires at least Eventualvorsatz. In commercial law ( § 148b Industrial Code ), the legislator for commercial handling of stolen goods of precious metals can already recklessly with regard to the lack of knowledge about the origin sufficient to constitute a criminal offense. Thus, to consider regarding vendors and origin of the purchase object for the professional Ankäufer of gold, silver, platinum and Platinbeimetallen (palladium, rhodium, ruthenium, iridium and osmium ) special duties of care.

Problems of proof and election observation

There is often the seizure or freezing of stolen goods to prove the problem of whether the person was in the matter ( s) found ( n ), was involved in the offense, or has procured its the thing in knowledge. So far, therefore, either a property crime such as theft or receiving stolen property may have occurred. Here you can help yourself with a so-called alternative finding. Both offenses, theft and receiving stolen property, have the same penalties ( imprisonment for up to five years or a fine ) - true to the principle that the fence was not better than the stealer. Due to the equivalence of the wrong content and the psychological comparability is therefore likely to be sentenced to one or the other offense. However, this is partially rejected by criminal lawyers, because thereby the presumption of innocence and the in- dubio - per - reo principle would be annulled.