Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-xq9c7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T08:01:35.119Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prosecuting Terrorism Financing in Germany: Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 — 3 StR 552/08

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Christoph Safferling  and
Timo Ide

Abstract

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.

The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) has to frequently adjudicate cases related to terrorism. The “War on Terror” has reached the German judiciary shortly after its proclamation as a reaction to the 9/11-attacks. Ever since, German criminal law is grappling with the question of how to harmonize security interests on the one hand with individual rights and liberties on the other. The expansion of the criminal law is a real threat for the previously liberty-oriented criminal law. The court decision discussed in this case addresses a specific aspect of terrorism: the financing of terrorist activities. As there is no special law prohibiting such kind of behavior, the judges had to apply section 263 of the German Criminal Code, which deals with fraud, and combine this with sections 129 a and b of the German Criminal Code, which makes being merely a member of a criminal organization into a criminal offence. A highly sensitive field of law that is put under scrutiny by anti-terrorism measures is procedural law. As secret investigation measures through electronic surveillance become more prevalent and sophisticated, the admissibility of the evidence, which was gained mainly by intelligence, becomes more and more questionable. The court decision discussed in this paper proves the willingness of the Federal Judges in Germany to reduce individual liberty rights in order to enhance the effectiveness of criminal prosecution.

Type
Developments
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 11 , Issue 11 , November 2010 , pp. 1292 - 1305
Copyright
Copyright © 2010 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See most prominent the case against the 9/11-supporter El Motassadeq in BGHSt 49, 112 and BGHSt 51, 144; see also C. Safferling, Terror and Law – Is the German Legal System able to deal with Terrorism?, 5 German Law Journal 515 (2004). In the general context see also C. Safferling, Terror and Law – German Responses to 9/11, 4 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1152 (2006).Google Scholar

2 See H. Radtke & M. Steinsiek, Bekämpfung des internationalen Terrorismus durch Kriminalisierung von Vorbereitungshandlungen, 3 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik 383 (2008); K. Gierhake, Zur geplanten Einführung neuer Straftatbestände wegen der Vorbereitung terroristischer Straftaten, 3 Zeitschrift für Internationale Strafrechtsdogmatik, 397 (2008).Google Scholar

3 See B. Weißer, Der “Kampf gegen den Terrorismus” – Prävention durch Strafrecht?, 63 JuristenZeitung 388 (2008).Google Scholar

4 See Albrecht, P.A., Kriminologie, 132, 3rd ed. 2005.Google Scholar

5 See e.g. H. Satzger in H. Satzger, B. Schmitt & G. Widmaier, stGB – Strafgesetzbuch, 2009, Vor §§ 1 et subs. MN 9.Google Scholar

6 See with a view to economic crimes: R. Hefendehl, Auβerstrafrechtlich und strafrechtliche Instrumentarien zur Eindämmung der Wirtschaftskriminalität, 119 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 816, 817 (2007).Google Scholar

7 The term 'Feindstrafrecht' was crafted by G. Jakobs, ‘Bürgerstrafrecht und Feindstrafrecht', in: Höchstrichteruche Rechtsprechung Strafrecht - HRRS 2004, 88 (online at http://www.hrr-strafrecht.de/hrr/archiv/04-03/hrrs-3-04.pdf, last accessed, 19 November 2010); the same, Terroristen als Personen im Recht, 117 Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 839 (2005); a thorough analysis of this concept can be found in Th. Uwer (ed.), “Bitte bewahren Sie Ruhe“ Leben im Feindstrafrecht (2006). For a summary See Albrecht, P.A., Kriminologie, 3rd ed. 2005, 70 et subs.Google Scholar

8 See §§ 142 a, 120 of the Organization of the Courts Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz)Google Scholar

9 BGH, Judgement of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08 – reprinted in 54 BGHSt 69 = 62 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 3448 (2009).Google Scholar

10 An English version of the German Criminal Code can be found at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englischstgb/englischstgb.html#StGB000P129b (last accessed 28 December 2009). The translation is provided by Prof. Dr. M. Bohlander.Google Scholar

11 As to the former jurisprudence in this regard, See Fischer, T., Strafgesetzbuch, 56th ed. Munich 2009, § 263 MN 94–104.Google Scholar

12 Critical in this regard: W. Joecks, Anmerkung zu BGH Urteil v. 14. August 2009, 29 wistra 179 et subs. (2010), and J. Thielmann, A. Groß-Bölting & J. Strauß, Die “signifikante Erhöhung der Leistungswahrscheinlichkeit” als Vermögensschaden i.S.d. § 263 StGB, in HRR-Strafrecht 2010, 38 et subs.Google Scholar

13 OJ L 164, 3 of 22 June 2002; See Kress, C., Das Strafrecht in der Europäischen Union vor der Herausforderung durch organisierte Kriminalität und Terrorismus, Juristische Arbeitsblätter 220 (2005).Google Scholar

14 See Note 1. Bericht der Kommission auf der Grundlage von Artikel 11 des Rahmenbeschlusses des Rates vom 13.06.2002 zur Terrorismusbekämpfung, KOM (2004) 409 endgültig, vom 08.06.2004; and 2. Bericht vom 06.11.2007, KOM 681 (2007) endgültig.Google Scholar

15 See 34th Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz, 22 August 2002, Bundesgesetzblatt I, 3390–3392 (2002); See Stein, U., Kriminelle und terroristische Vereinigungen mit Auslandsbezug seit der Einführung von § 129 b StGB, 23 Goltdammer's Archiv für Strafrecht 433 (2005); G. Altvater, Das 34. Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz - § 129 b StGB, in: 23 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 179 (2003).Google Scholar

16 See BGH 3 StB 52/09, 15 Dec. 2009 = Strafverteidiger Forum 2010, 207. See also K. Miebach & J. Schäfer, § 129b MN 9, in: Münchener Kommentarzum StGB, Vol. 2/2, Wolfgang Joecks & Klaus Miebach, eds. (1st ed. 2005).Google Scholar

17 Punishable under § 239 b of the German Criminal Code.Google Scholar

18 Punishable under § 239 a of the German Criminal Code.Google Scholar

19 Punishable under §§ 211 and 212 of the German Criminal Code.Google Scholar

20 Punishable under §§ 6, 7, 8–11 of the German Code of International Criminal Law.Google Scholar

21 Punishable under § 226 of the German Criminal Code.Google Scholar

22 As to the relationship between §§ 129 a and b StGB most recently BGH 3 StB 5/10, decision of 4 April 2010.Google Scholar

23 There are numerous decision establishing these criteria one of the most recent is BGH 61 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 1012 (2008); see also T. Fischer, Strafgesetzbuch § 129 MN 6 (56th ed. 2009); Klaus Miebach & Jürgen Schäfer, § 129a MN 21 et subs., in: Münchener Kommentar zum StGB, Vol. 2/2, Wolfgang Joecks & Klaus Miebach, eds. (1st ed. 2005).Google Scholar

24 Fischer, T., Strafgesetzbuch, § 129 MN 7.Google Scholar

25 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 117.Google Scholar

26 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 118 et seq.Google Scholar

27 See Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 124 et seq.Google Scholar

28 See Hefendehl, R., Die neue Ermittlungsgeneralklausel der §§ 161, 163 StPO: Segen oder Fluch?, 21 Strafverteidiger 700, 705 (2001); F. Roggan, Das neue BKA-Gesetz - Zur weiteren Zentralisierung der deutschen Sicherheitsarchitektur, 62 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 257 (2009).Google Scholar

29 H.-H. Kühne, in: Löwe-Rosenberg StPO, Einl. Abschn. C MN 12, Einl. Abschn. F MN 46. (R. Esser, U. Franke & V. Erb et al. eds., 26th ed. 2006).Google Scholar

30 BVerfGE 113, 348, 368; Degenhart, in: Grundgesetz - kommentar, Art. 74 MN 27 (M. Sachs ed. 5th ed. 2009); H.-H. Kühne, in: Löwe-Rosenberg StPO, Einl. Abschn. C MN 1 (R. Esser, U. Franke & V. Erb et al. eds., 26th ed. 2006).Google Scholar

31 An English version of the German Code of Criminal Procedure can be found at: http://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englischstpo/englischstpo.html#StPO000P100d (last accessed: 22 February 2010).Google Scholar

32 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 31.Google Scholar

33 L. Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, § 100 c (53rd ed. 2009); H.-H. Kühne, Strafprozessrecht, § 30 MN 530 (7th ed. 2007)Google Scholar

34 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 27 et seq.Google Scholar

35 BVerfG 109, 279, 57 Neue Juristische Wochenschrift 999 (2004); see J. Stender-Vorwachs, The Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 3 March 2004 on Acoustic Supervision of Housing Space, 5 German Law Journal 1337 (2004).Google Scholar

36 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 23 et seq.Google Scholar

37 See BGHSt 44, 243; L. Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, Einl MN 55 (53rd ed. 2009); H.-H. Kühne, Strafprozessrecht, MN 907 (7th ed. 2007).Google Scholar

38 L. Meyer-Goßner, Strafprozessordnung, § 136 a MN 27 (53rd ed. 2009); K. Peters, Strafprozeß, 337 (4th ed. 1985).Google Scholar

39 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 57.Google Scholar

40 Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice), Judgment of 14 August 2009 – 3 StR 552/08, MN 76.Google Scholar

41 Landau, H., Die Pflicht des Staates zum Erhalt einer funktionstüchtigen Strafrechtspflege, 27 Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht 121 (2007).Google Scholar

42 Critically as regards this rule-exception mechanism also C. Gusy, Verfassungsverwirklichung durch Verwendung und Nichtverwendung von Informationen im Strafprozess, HRR-Strafrecht 2009, 489, 491.Google Scholar

43 Critically in this regard also S. Beukelmann, „Verwendungsbeschränkter” Persönlichkeitsschutz, in: NJW-Spezial 2009, 712.Google Scholar

44 See in general C. Safferling, Die Strafbarkeit wegen „Conspiracy” in Nürnberg und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart, 93 Kritische Vierteljahresschrift 87 (2010).Google Scholar

45 See W. Hassemer/U. Neumann, in: Nomos Kommentar StGB, Vor § 1 MN 157 (U. Kindhäuser, U. Neumann & HU Paeffgen eds. 3rd ed. 2010).Google Scholar

46 See also W. Joecks, in: Münchener Kommentar StGB, Vor § 1 MN 107 (W. Joecks & K. Miebach eds 2003).Google Scholar