Correction of confiscation order to impose joint and several liability for criminal proceeds
Legislator-Zusammenfassung
KI-generiertThe Federal Court of Justice (6th Criminal Senate) dismissed the defendant's appeal as unfounded, thereby upholding the conviction from the Lower Regional Court of Potsdam, while modifying the judgment to explicitly state that the defendant is liable as a joint and several debtor for the confiscation of the value of criminal proceeds. The defendant was also ordered to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings. The case involved a criminal prosecution where the appeal challenged the lower court's decision, but the higher court found no grounds for reversal on the merits, though it corrected the formulation regarding civil liability for asset confiscation in accordance with the General Federal Prosecutor's petition. The decision rests on criminal procedure and enforcement law principles governing the appeal review process and the specific statutory requirements for defining the scope of liability in orders regarding the confiscation of criminal gains.
Legislator-Regeste
KI-generiertCorrection of confiscation order to impose joint and several liability for criminal proceeds: The defendant was also ordered to bear the costs of the appellate proceedings. The case involved a criminal prosecution where the appeal challenged the lower court's decision, but the higher court found no grounds for reversal on the merits, though it corrected the formulation regarding civil liability for asset confiscation in accordance with the General Federal Prosecutor's petition. The decision rests on criminal procedure and enforcement law principles governing the appeal review process and the specific statutory requirements for defining the scope of liability in orders regarding the confiscation of criminal gains.
Schlagwörter
KI-generiertVerwandte Entscheide
KI-generiertVolltext
Die Revision des Angeklagten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Potsdam vom 5. Oktober 2022 wird als unbegründet verworfen; im Ausspruch über die Einziehung des Wertes von Taterträgen wird es jedoch aus den in der Antragsschrift des Generalbundesanwalts genannten Gründen dahin ergänzt, dass der Angeklagte als Gesamtschuldner haftet.
Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.
Sander
Feilcke
Tiemann
von Schmettau
Arnoldi