Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:00:41.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Money Laundering by Defence Counsel – The Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Anne Bussenius

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Ever since the incorporation of § 261, the offence of money laundering, into the Strafgesetzbuch (StGB – German Penal Code), the application of this statute to defence counsel has been discussed controversially. The debate stems from the extensive range of the statute, which calls not only for punishment of people who, for example, committed clandestine acts in order to conceal the criminal origin of a “dirty” object, but also from section 2, which addresses those who simply procured objects deriving from any prior crime enumerated in the money laundering offence. For defence counsel the risk of making themselves liable for prosecution is extraordinarily high. Since it is the nature of their profession that they deal with the accused and receive payment for their work, they are more likely to come in contact with and receive “dirty” money than most other people. The threat is intensified by § 261 sec. 5 StGB, a special rule on the mens rea requirement. According to this section, the money laundering offence does not necessarily require the person to know about or act with contingent intent as to the incriminated origin of the object. Instead, it is sufficient if he or she does not realise the origin, even though it was obvious, and thus acts grossly negligently concerning the incrimination of the object. Therefore, § 261 Abs. 5 StGB poses a serious threat to defence counsels since they obtain facts about their clients in order to fascilitate defence, which then may lead to the allegation that they should have realised the criminal origins of the money they received as a fee.

Type
Public Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 9 , 01 September 2004 , pp. 1045 - 1055
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See reference in BVerfG NJW 2004, S. 1305, 1306 and Bussenius, Geldwäsche und Strafverteidigerhonorar (2004).Google Scholar

2 See Bernsmann, Strafverteidiger (StV) 2000, 40, 41; Nestler, StV 2000, 641; Müther, Jura 2001, 318, 320; Gräfin von Galen, StV 2000, 575; Hefendehl, in Festschrift für Roxin, 145; Wohlers, StV 2001, 420.Google Scholar

3 See §§ 97, 100a, 102 StPO.Google Scholar

4 Bernsmann, StV 2000, 40, 41; OLG Hamburg, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 2000, 673, 677; Müther, Jura 2001, 318, 320; Gotzens & Schneider, Zeitschrift für Wirtschafts- und Steuerstrafrecht (wistra) 2002, 121, 125.Google Scholar

5 The StPO conveys such a claim against serious charges (§ 140 Abs. 1), when the Courts finds the collaboration of a counsel necessary because of the difficulty of the case (§ 140 Abs. 2 1. Alt.) and in cases of obvious inability of the accused to defend himself (§ 149 Abs. 2 2. Alt.).Google Scholar

6 OLG Hamburg NJW 2000, 673, 676-677; Barton, StV 1993, 156, 158; Hartung, Anwaltsblatt (AnwBl) 1994, 440; Gräfin von Galen, StV 2000, 575, 581; Wohlers, StV 2001, 420, 426.Google Scholar

7 The occupational freedom (Berufsfreiheit) is guaranteed in Art. 12 Abs. 1 Grundgesetz (GG – Basic law). The free choice of the counsel is protected in Art. 2 Abs. 1 GG in connection with the principle of due course of law, BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305, 1308.Google Scholar

8 See the references in Bussenius, supra note 1, at 64.Google Scholar

9 See BT-Drs. 12/989, 27; BT-Drs. 12/3533, 12 f.Google Scholar

10 NJW 2000, 673.Google Scholar

11 BGHSt 47, 68.Google Scholar

12 Id. at. 78.Google Scholar

13 Id.Google Scholar

14 See BVerfGE 13, 181 (186); BVerfGE 47, 1 (21) and the references in Sachs & Tettinger, Grundgesetz (2003), Art. 12, 317.Google Scholar

15 BGHSt 47, 68 (73).Google Scholar

16 Id. at 75.Google Scholar

17 Id.Google Scholar

18 Id. at 75. In the same sense Schaefer & Wittig, NJW 2000, 1387; Burger & Peglau, wistra 2000, 1387; Reichert, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 2000, 316; Katholnigg, NJW 2001, 2041; Grüner & Wasserburg, Goltdammer's Archiv (GA) 2000, 430, 437.Google Scholar

19 BGHSt 47, 68, 75.Google Scholar

20 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305.Google Scholar

21 Id. at 1308.Google Scholar

22 Id.Google Scholar

23 Id.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 1309.Google Scholar

25 Id.Google Scholar

26 Id. at 1310.Google Scholar

27 Id. at 1309; see also the criticism by Mühlbauer, Höchstrichterliche Rechtsprechung – Strafrecht (HRRS) 4/2004, 133, 135.Google Scholar

28 See Barton, Mindeststandards der Verteidigung 256 (1994); Hombrecher, Geldwäsche (§ 261 StGB) durch Strafverteidiger? 65 (2001).Google Scholar

29 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305, 1310.Google Scholar

30 Id. at 1311.Google Scholar

31 See the references in Bussenius, supra note 1, at 128.Google Scholar

32 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305 (1311).Google Scholar

33 Id.Google Scholar

34 Id. at 1306.Google Scholar

35 Id.Google Scholar

36 Id.Google Scholar

37 Id. at 1307.Google Scholar

38 See the references in Bussenius, supra note 1, at 128.Google Scholar

39 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305 (1307).Google Scholar

40 Id. at 1311.Google Scholar

41 Id. at 1312.Google Scholar

42 Id. at 1311.Google Scholar

43 Id.Google Scholar

44 Id.Google Scholar

45 Id.Google Scholar

46 Id.Google Scholar

47 Id.Google Scholar

48 Id.Google Scholar

49 See BGHSt 38, 345 (350); BGHSt 46, 36 (43); BGHSt 46, 53 (58).Google Scholar

50 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305 (1312).Google Scholar

51 See Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer – Mitteilungen (BRAK-Mittl.) 3/2004, 126.Google Scholar

52 See Mühlbauer, HRRS 4/2004, 132 (139).Google Scholar

53 See Matt, GA 2002, 137, 145; Grüner/Wasserburg, GA 2000, 430, 433; Bernsmann, StV 2000, 40, 42; Ambos, Juristenzeitung (JZ) 2002, 70, 76; Bussenius, supra note 1, at 132.Google Scholar

54 See only Bernsmann, StV 2000, 40, 42; Ambos, JZ 2002, 70, 76; supra note 1, at 132.Google Scholar

55 See Mühlbauer, HRRS 4/2004, 132, 140.Google Scholar

56 As to the possibility of civil charges of the victim of the client's crime against a defence counsel, see Bussenius, supra note 1, at 144-165.Google Scholar

57 Critical also Mühlbauer HRRS 4/2004, 132, 136.Google Scholar

58 BVerfG NJW 2004, 1305 (1307).Google Scholar

59 See the criticism of Mühlbauer, HRRS 2/2004, 132, 138.Google Scholar

60 BGH NJW 2004, 1305 (1307).Google Scholar

61 Id. at 1311.Google Scholar

62 Id.Google Scholar

63 Mühlbauer, HRRS 4/2004, 132, 140.Google Scholar