Clarification of guilt for aiding commercial group fraud in concurrence with trademark infringement in criminal revision proceedings.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) rejected the defendant's revision as unsubstantiated, upholding the judgment of the Cologne Regional Court of 10 June 2022, with a mandatory clarification that the defendant is guilty of aiding and abetting commercial group fraud in concurrence with aiding and abetting commercial and group trademark infringement and aiding and abetting the commercial and group violation of a community trademark; the defendant bears the costs of the legal remedy. The dispute concerned the procedural correctness of the guilt finding in a criminal case involving complex economic offenses, specifically where the trial court had failed to explicitly state the concurrence of charges for the trademark-related offenses in the operative part of the judgment. The decisive legal basis required for a valid judgment is the precise formulation of the *Tateinheit* (concurrence) between the aiding acts and the underlying commercial group offenses to ensure the accused can understand the specific legal characterization of the crimes charged.