Clarification of joint and several liability share in order for forfeiture of value of criminal proceeds
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's revision as unfounded, upholding the Bonn Regional Court's criminal conviction while amending the judgment to specify that the defendant bears joint and several liability for 17,433.00 € of the total 32,883.00 € forfeiture order regarding the value of proceeds from criminal offenses. The dispute concerned the precise formulation of the accessory penalty for the recovery of criminal gains, where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision on the scope of liability for the forfeited amount. The decisive legal basis is the requirement under German criminal procedure law that forfeiture orders for the value of criminal proceeds must clearly delineate the extent of joint and several liability among multiple defendants to ensure enforceability, leading the appellate court to correct the operative part of the judgment to explicitly state the defendant's individual share of the joint debt without altering the underlying substantive conviction.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertClarification of joint and several liability share in order for forfeiture of value of criminal proceeds: The dispute concerned the precise formulation of the accessory penalty for the recovery of criminal gains, where the defendant challenged the lower court's decision on the scope of liability for the forfeited amount. The decisive legal basis is the requirement under German criminal procedure law that forfeiture orders for the value of criminal proceeds must clearly delineate the extent of joint and several liability among multiple defendants to ensure enforceability, leading the appellate court to correct the operative part of the judgment to explicitly state the defendant's individual share of the joint debt without altering the underlying substantive conviction.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Bonn vom 9. Juni 2022 wird mit der Maßgabe als unbegründet verworfen, dass der Ausspruch über die Einziehung des Wertes von Taterträgen in Höhe von 32.883,00 € dahin ergänzt wird, dass der Angeklagte in Höhe eines Teilbetrages von 17.433,00 € als Gesamtschuldner haftet. Im Übrigen hat die Nachprüfung des Urteils auf Grund der Revisionsrechtfertigung keinen Rechtsfehler zum Nachteil des Angeklagten ergeben.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Krehl
Eschelbach
Meyberg
Grube
Lutz