Correction of criminal proceeds forfeiture scope to include additional joint liability for unforfeited illicit gains
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe BGH Third Criminal Senate dismissed the defendant’s revision as unfounded, upholding the Landgericht Kleve’s conviction, but modified the forfeiture order to additionally mandate the forfeiture of 700 EUR of criminal proceeds as a joint debtor, alongside the previously ordered 200 EUR, while the defendant bears the costs of the appeal. The dispute centered on a criminal appeal challenging the first-instance judgment regarding the forfeiture of proceeds obtained through criminal activity. The decisive legal basis involved the correction of the *Einziehung* (forfeiture of criminal proceeds) under German criminal law, specifically adjusting the scope of liability for proceeds not yet fully captured in the original ruling to ensure complete confiscation of illicit gains.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertCorrection of criminal proceeds forfeiture scope to include additional joint liability for unforfeited illicit gains: The dispute centered on a criminal appeal challenging the first-instance judgment regarding the forfeiture of proceeds obtained through criminal activity. The decisive legal basis involved the correction of the *Einziehung* (forfeiture of criminal proceeds) under German criminal law, specifically adjusting the scope of liability for proceeds not yet fully captured in the original ruling to ensure complete confiscation of illicit gains.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Kleve - Auswärtige Strafkammer in Moers - vom 25. Mai 2022 wird als unbegründet verworfen; jedoch wird der Ausspruch über die Einziehung aus den Gründen der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts dahin geändert, dass gegen den Angeklagten - über die Einziehung des Wertes von weiteren Taterträgen in Höhe von 200 € hinaus - die Einziehung des Wertes von Taterträgen in Höhe von 700 € als Gesamtschuldner angeordnet wird.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Schäfer
Paul
Hohoff
Anstötz
Voigt