When someone is accused of homicide, their entire social and economic existence is at stake—yet there are a multitude of scenarios in which even ordinary people can suddenly find themselves confronted with responsibility for the death of another human being in their everyday lives.
Category: Criminal Defense
The use of evidence obtained during criminal proceedings by the tax authorities repeatedly raises delicate constitutional issues. In its decision of 23 April 2025 (I B 51/22), the Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) clarified: If digital evidence — here, a hard drive — is handed over to the tax office without the mandatory prior screening by the public prosecutor’s office, this violates the fundamental right to informational self-determination and results in an exclusion of evidence.
The Hamm Higher Regional Court on Territorial Jurisdiction and Organisational Offences: In its decision of 14 May 2025 (Case No. 1 Ws 90/25), the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Hamm addressed the applicability of German criminal law in cases where part of a fraudulent offence has been committed abroad, provided that the result of the offence occurs (even partially) within Germany. The case concerned a large-scale, cross-border fraud scheme involving so-called “training packages” which, in reality, served to promote a non-existent cryptocurrency. The ruling is particularly notable in its doctrinal approach, as the court invoked the concept of an “improper organisational offence” to qualify the entirety of the conduct as a single criminal act under German law.
At first glance, the blockchain-based betting platform Polymarket might appear to be just another technical curiosity from the world of cryptocurrencies. But a closer look reveals a profound social phenomenon: the gamification of political and societal reality. If you want to know what people believe is likely to happen—and are willing to back up with real money—you’ll find Polymarket to be a fascinating, if deeply ambivalent, arena.
Categories
Money Laundering Law in Germany
Understanding the Unique Challenges of Money Laundering Law in Germany: Germany, with its highly developed economy and pivotal role in global finance, is particularly vulnerable to the infiltration of illicit capital. Despite robust legal reforms in recent years, the fight against money laundering in Germany remains marked by significant legal complexity, broad criminal liability, and unresolved systemic tensions between domestic enforcement needs and cross-border legal constraints.
FG Nürnberg Confirms Taxability Despite Virtual Execution: In its judgment of January 22, 2025 (Case No. 3 K 760/22), the Fiscal Court (Finanzgericht, FG) of Nuremberg issued a landmark ruling on the taxation of gains from cryptocurrency transactions. The court not only confirmed the general tax liability of such private sales under § 23(1) sentence 1 no. 2 of the German Income Tax Act (EStG), but also addressed in detail a range of arguments raised by the taxpayer—concerning the lack of economic substance of tokens, the purely virtual nature of transactions, and alleged enforcement deficiencies by tax authorities.
As our world becomes increasingly digitized, digital evidence has emerged as a key component in legal proceedings, especially in Germany. Whether it’s chat logs, data stored on smartphones, or forensic copies of hard drives, courts must determine not only the truth contained in digital artifacts but also whether they were obtained and handled in a legally sound manner. This article offers a structured overview of how digital evidence is treated in German criminal and civil procedures, highlighting key legal challenges and principles.
Encrypted Evidence and Constitutional Boundaries: Over the past several years, German criminal courts have been confronted with an influx of evidence originating from encrypted communications services—so-called “Kryptomessenger” platforms—such as EncroChat, SkyECC, and, more recently, Anom. These platforms, marketed as secure communication tools, often served the criminal underworld as havens for logistical coordination, trafficking, and financial transactions.
Once considered virtually impenetrable, they were ultimately infiltrated by international law enforcement operations. This development has sparked a cascade of legal proceedings in Germany, bringing to the surface one of the most delicate tensions in modern criminal procedure: the admissibility of foreign-sourced, technologically complex digital evidence in a system constrained by strict constitutional norms.
In the age of digital infrastructures, Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks and the use of botnets have become emblematic of modern cybercrime. While these acts are often discussed in technical or operational terms, their legal dimension—particularly under German criminal law—is both sophisticated and rigorous. This article provides a detailed legal analysis of DDoS attacks and botnets, grounded in German jurisprudence and supported by insights derived from current case law and cybercrime reports.
More Than Just a Matter of Money: When foreigners hear the term “court-appointed defense attorney” in the German context—Pflichtverteidiger—they often assume it equates to a public defender system as seen in the United States or the UK. But that assumption leads to misunderstanding. In Germany, the idea of “mandatory defense” is less about one’s financial situation and more about the legal complexity or severity of the case at hand.
The term Pflichtverteidiger literally means “mandatory defense counsel,” but it does not imply the presence of a general legal aid system in criminal matters. Rather, it refers to specific instances where the law demands that a defendant must have legal counsel—regardless of their financial means or personal wishes.