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.
Starting Point: Organised White-Collar Crime and Criminal Liability
The party subject to asset confiscation had established and operated a structured business model designed to deceive investors through multiple transactions. While these activities extended beyond German borders, among the victims were individuals residing in Germany, who were induced to part with money from within the country. Thus, the result of the fraudulent conduct, in terms of economic harm, occurred in Germany.
This fact was crucial for the court’s finding: under § 3 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), German criminal law applies when the result of an offence occurs on German territory. In addition, § 9(1) StGB allows acts committed abroad to fall under German law if another participant in the crime committed a punishable act within Germany. Taken together, these provisions justified the transnational application of German criminal law in this case.
Legal Qualification as an “Improper Organisational Offence”
What makes the decision particularly striking is the court’s characterisation of the conduct as an “improper organisational offence” – a concept used to describe situations where criminal liability arises not from isolated acts, but from the establishment and maintenance of a system designed to commit offences. This model is aligned with the jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), which recognises that in such cases, individual acts may be subsumed under a single, continuing offence pursuant to § 52 StGB.
This doctrinal tool is not merely technical; it reflects a functional understanding of criminal law, tailored to the reality of complex, system-based white-collar crime. Criminal structures that operate over time and through numerous actions require a legal framework capable of addressing their cumulative harm. The court’s acceptance of a single overarching offence allows for a coherent legal response and facilitates the asset recovery process.
Transnational Dimensions and Jurisdictional Reach
The case highlights the global dimension of economic crime. In the digital age, fraudulent operations are rarely confined to one country. Here, the court emphasised that the legal relevance lies not in where the deception originated or where the entity was domiciled, but in where the victim suffered the financial loss. That occurred in Germany. Accordingly, the court relied on the so-called “result-based principle” enshrined in § 3 StGB, which allows German courts to assert jurisdiction when the harmful outcome is felt within the country.
At the same time, the court respected the constitutional limits of extraterritorial prosecution. The defendant had not been convicted for the conduct in any other country, so there was no infringement of the ne bis in idem principle (prohibition of double jeopardy).
Organised and transnational white-collar crime
The decision of the Hamm Higher Regional Court exemplifies the judiciary’s evolving response to organised and transnational white-collar crime. The application of German criminal law in this cross-border fraud case was not driven by jurisdictional overreach but by a well-grounded commitment to protecting legal interests where harm occurs. By invoking the organisational offence framework, the court addressed the structural nature of modern criminal operations and provided a doctrinally sound basis for law enforcement action. It shows how criminal law is adapting to a reality in which complex economic crimes transcend borders—and how legal doctrine, when flexibly and thoughtfully applied, can keep pace.
Joint and Several Liability and Asset Confiscation
A further aspect of the decision concerned the confiscation of assets. The Hamm court upheld the lower court’s ruling ordering the confiscation of over €2.5 million from the defendant on the basis of joint and several liability. The court clarified that such liability applies whenever a person has had at least temporary control over unlawfully obtained assets. This mirrors civil law principles of joint liability and underscores the interplay between private and criminal law in modern asset recovery regimes.
Our law firm specialises in criminal defence, white-collar crime and IT law / technology law. Note our activity in digital evidence in IT security and software law.
- Understanding cyber diplomacy as a strategic necessity - 19. June 2025
- Israel and Iran: Cyber Espionage, Cyber Warfare and Cyber Defense in Comparison - 19. June 2025
- Israel: Cyber Espionage, Cyber Warfare and Cybersecurity - 19. June 2025