Category: Criminal Defense

Legal Background and Criminal Liability of german coffee tax: Germany is one of the few European countries that levies a tax on coffee. The Coffee Tax Act (KaffeeStG) regulates the imposition of a consumption tax on coffee and coffee-containing products. The current tax rate is €2.19 per kilogram of roasted coffee and €4.78 per kilogram of instant coffee. For coffee-containing products—such as sweets or other items with a coffee content of between 10 and 900 grams per kilogram—graduated rates apply. The tax is levied when coffee is released for consumption in the German tax territory, imported from third countries, or purchased from other EU member states for commercial purposes.

The importation and trafficking of narcotics in significant quantities rank among the most serious offenses under German narcotics law. Particularly contentious are cases involving so-called “port insiders”—individuals who, due to their knowledge of port operations or their professional positions in seaports, facilitate the retrieval or transport of drugs. In recent years, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has issued several landmark rulings on this topic, clarifying not only the distinction between perpetration and accessory liability but also refining the legal assessment of logistical support activities. These decisions demonstrate the complexity of classifying such actions, especially when determining whether an individual should be considered a principal offender or merely an accomplice.

Double Jeopardy in Cross-Border Criminal Law: The principle of ne bis in idem—the prohibition of double jeopardy—is a cornerstone of the rule of law. Within the European Union, it is enshrined in Article 54 of the Schengen Implementation Agreement (SIA) and Article 50 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what constitutes the “same offense” in a borderless area where crimes often have cross-border dimensions? The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed this question in its judgment of September 11, 2025 (Case C-802/23).

The case involved a former leader of the terrorist organization ETA, who had been convicted in France for participation in a terrorist organization and was subsequently prosecuted in Spain for specific terrorist attacks. The CJEU’s decision clarifies the conditions under which identity of offenses, in the sense of EU law, can be established—a question of significance not only for terrorism cases but for EU criminal law as a whole.

In recent months, the issue of organized social benefit fraud has moved to the center of political debate in Germany. Headlines about an alleged “citizens’ benefit mafia” dominate the discourse, accompanied by calls for tighter controls and tougher sanctions. At the core are cases where criminal groups bring people from Eastern Europe to Germany, provide them with fictitious employment contracts and registered addresses, and then have them apply for social benefits. The beneficiaries are compelled to hand over the payments to the organizers, often while living themselves in precarious conditions.

Some municipalities in the Ruhr area report systematic abuse and local politicians describe “mafia structures,” while others emphasize the weak statistical foundation of these claims. In 2024, there were 421 initiated proceedings nationwide concerning organized benefit fraud—a rise compared to the previous year, but still a numerically small fraction of the millions of recipients. Moreover, many cases do not end in convictions, making it difficult to assess both the actual scope of the problem and the size of the dark figure.

On the Scope of the Factual Description Required under § 83a IRG: In a recent decision, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified the standards that apply to the factual description in a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) when serial offenses are involved. The case touches on a recurring practical issue at the intersection of German international mutual legal assistance law and the harmonized EU framework for extradition. At the core is the interpretation of § 83a (1) No. 5 of the German Law on International Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (IRG) in conjunction with Article 8 (1)(e) of the EU Framework Decision on the EAW.

Under German law, organizing or facilitating the illegal entry of foreign nationals is a criminal offense. If such an act results in the death of a person, the offense may be punished far more severely as “smuggling with fatal consequences” under Section 97 (1) of the Residence Act (Aufenthaltsgesetz, AufenthG). But not every tragic outcome leads to a conviction. A recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH, 3 StR 173/25, 24 June 2025) clarified important legal conditions for such a conviction—and set limits on what prosecutors must prove.

The Baltic Sea as a crime scene, the Andromeda as the vessel, fingerprints and DNA as the quiet but persistent narrators of an operation that left Europe holding its breath in the autumn of 2022: by the summer of 2025, investigations into the attacks on the Nord Stream 1 and 2 pipelines have visibly entered a new phase. According to coordinated research by ARD, Süddeutsche Zeitung and Die Zeit, arrest warrants have now been issued against six Ukrainians; one of the suspects, Serhii K., was arrested in Italy.

Investigators rely on a dense web of traces found aboard the chartered sailing yacht Andromeda, including explosive residues, structural damage, fingerprints and DNA. At the same time, indications point to connections between some of the accused and Ukrainian authorities; the presumption of innocence nevertheless applies, and the question of possible state involvement remains contested. As of late August 2025, no indictment has been filed; the matter remains in the investigative phase.