The EPPO’s “Emily” operation against an alleged multimillion-euro VAT carousel in the luxury car sector illustrates how quickly cross-border trade can slide from aggressive tax planning into full-blown criminal exposure – and how asset confiscation has become at least as dangerous as the threat of a prison sentence.
Category: Criminal Defense
Cannabis for personal use is no longer treated as a “classic” narcotic under German law – but that does not mean it is harmless from a criminal law perspective. The new Cannabis Use Act (Konsumcannabisgesetz, KCanG) still creates a dense web of offences, and recent case law by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), higher regional courts and the Bavarian Supreme Court (BayObLG) shows that criminal investigations, seizures and prison sentences remain very real risks for consumers, home growers and those involved in the commercial market.
Germany has closed a long‑criticised loophole by bringing nitrous oxide (“laughing gas”, N₂O), gamma‑butyrolactone (GBL) and 1,4‑butanediol (BDO) under its New Psychoactive Substances Act (Neue‑psychoaktive‑Stoffe‑Gesetz – NpSG). The amending act was promulgated on 12 January 2026 and will enter into force on 12 April 2026. The reform responds to rising recreational use of nitrous oxide and the misuse of GBL/BDO as so‑called “date‑rape drugs”, while trying to preserve recognised industrial, commercial and medical uses.
For companies that manufacture, trade or transport these substances into, within or through Germany, the new regime creates a complex mix of prohibitions, exemptions and criminal liability that requires careful compliance planning.
Smuggling of migrants is no longer a marginal offence at the external borders of the EU, but a daily reality in inner-European border regions as well. In the German–Belgian–Dutch triangle around Aachen, investigations into alleged “smugglers” range from low‑level drivers who transport people for small sums to actors accused of involvement in structured international networks. For those affected, the stakes are high: prison sentences of several years, extensive asset seizures and, in cases with fatalities, even life imprisonment.
German criminal law addresses smuggling of migrants primarily through sections 96 and 97 of the Residence Act (AufenthG). These provisions have been tightened significantly in recent years, most notably by the “Act to Improve Return” in 2024. At the same time, case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and European law – including the Return Directive and recent decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union – shape the limits and scope of criminal liability. Anyone facing such accusations needs a defence that understands both the dogmatic fine print and the realities of cross‑border enforcement practice.
Germany’s Federal Office of Justice sought to impose a total of 5.125 million euros on Telegram – and ultimately ran aground before the Local Court of Bonn on what sounds like a simple question: which legal entity actually operates the service. At its core, the case is not about sympathy or antipathy towards a particular messaging service, but about precise definitions of “provider”, robust evidence and the limits to how far authorities may stretch concepts of responsibility.
For senior management in internationally active digital businesses, the decisions are noteworthy for two reasons. First, they make clear that fine exposure is not managed solely through process‑level compliance programmes, but starts much earlier with the basic allocation of roles within the group and the way those roles are communicated externally. Second, the court underlines that regulatory strategies are constrained by rule‑of‑law principles such as the requirement of legal certainty – even where the political pressure to “do something” about hate speech and platform regulation is high.
Categories
Coffee Tax in Germany
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.
The headlines are dramatic: 2,435 seized containers, €800 million in tax damages, arrests in four countries. With Operation Calypso, the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) has dealt one of the biggest blows to organized customs and tax fraud in EU history. At its core is a system allegedly run by Chinese networks that has been evading duties and VAT on an industrial scale for years.
But behind the staggering numbers and images of confiscated e-bikes and textiles lie complex legal questions—especially for businesses, freight forwarders, and importers suddenly in the crosshairs of investigators. As a criminal defense lawyer specializing in tax law and a commentator on the work of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office, I see this case not only as an example of effective law enforcement but also as a warning for everyone involved in international trade. Above all, the forfeiture of assets—a tool often wielded rigorously in such cases—poses significant risks but also offers potential for defense.
The way digital investigators work in Germany and Europe today has changed fundamentally—something that not all stakeholders have noticed yet. As a criminal defense attorney, I have been observing how things are changing in my own cybercrime cases for years—in addition to the wealth of information I receive from my network of clients and colleagues. And I can only say: it’s time to wake up. German investigators in particular are extremely persistent and know how to make the most of international instruments. Above all, the special public prosecutor’s offices in Cologne, Frankfurt, and Bamberg must be kept on the international radar.