Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T20:16:52.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Money Laundering and Surveillance of Telecommunication – The Recent Decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH – Federal Court of Justice)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Hans Kudlich  and
Florian Melloh

Extract

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 possibility of monitoring telecommunications pursuant to § 100a of the Strafprozeßordnung (StPO – Criminal Procedure Code) existed in Germany for the last 35 years. Nonetheless, the surveillance of telecommunications is still the subject of controversy and dispute; not only in connection with new forms of communications but also with regard to the extent and grounds of application in “normal” cases of telephone surveillance.

Type
Public Law
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , 01 February 2004 , pp. 123 - 133
Copyright
Copyright © 2004 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See, BGH, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1934 (1997), with notes by Kudlich, in Juristische Schulung (JuS) 209 (1998) (Access to data contained in a mailbox). See also, BGH, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1587 (2001), with notes by Bernsmann, , in Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 103 (2002), as well as Kudlich, in Juristische Schulung (JuS) 1165 (2001) (Notification of the positioning signal of a mobile telephone).Google Scholar

2 See Backes/Gusy, Wer kontrolliert die Telefonüberwachung (2003), as well as Alb-recht/Dorsch/Krüpe, Rechtswirklichkeit und Effektivität der Überwachung der Telekommunikation nach den §§ 100a, 100b StPO und andere verdeckte ERMITTLUNGSMAßNAHMEN (2003).Google Scholar

3 BGBl. 1998 I, p. 845.Google Scholar

4 Catalogue of prior offences triggering the application of § 100a StPO.Google Scholar

5 List of prior offences whose profits are subject to money laundering.Google Scholar

6 See e.g.; fraud (§ 263 StGB), theft (§ 242 StGB), misappropriation (§ 246 StGB), breach of trust (§ 266 StGB) committed in a professional manner or as member of a gang.Google Scholar

7 See BGH 5 StR 423/02 = BGHSt 48, 240 = BGH, Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW) 1880 (2003).Google Scholar

8 BGH, NJW 1883 (2003).Google Scholar

9 See BGH, NJW 1880 (2003); §§ 373, 374 of the Abgabenordnung (AO – Tax Code).Google Scholar

10 See BGH, NJW 1880 (2003).Google Scholar

11 See BGH, NJW 1880 (2003).Google Scholar

12 See BGH, NJW 1880 (2003).Google Scholar

13 See BGH, NJW 1880 (2003).Google Scholar

14 See BGH, NJW 1881 (2003), II. 1, 2; See, § 344 II S. 2 StPO.Google Scholar

15 See BGH, NJW 1881 (2003), II. 2. a) aa).Google Scholar

16 See BT-Drs. 13/8651, p. 11. BGH, NJW 1881 seq. (2003), II. 2. a) bb).Google Scholar

17 See BGH, NJW 1882 (2003), II. 2. a) cc).Google Scholar

18 See BGH, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 654 (2000).Google Scholar

19 See BGH, NJW 1882 (2003), II. 2. a) dd).Google Scholar

20 See Kudlich, , Juristenzeitung (JZ) 127 (2003).Google Scholar

21 See supra note 1.Google Scholar

22 See BT-Drs. 13/8651, p. 9 (translation by the authors).Google Scholar

23 See BT-Drs. 13/8651, p. 9 (translation by the authors).Google Scholar

24 See BT-Drs. 13/8651, p. 13 (translation by the authors).Google Scholar

25 See § 100a no. 2 StPO.Google Scholar

26 See Mahnkopf, , Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 329 (2003).Google Scholar

27 § 46 I S.1 StGB.Google Scholar

28 See Lackner, /Kühl, , StGB Commentary, § 257 note 1 (24th ed., 2001); Geppert, Juristische Ausbildung (Jura) 269, 270 (1980).Google Scholar

29 See BT-Drs. 13/8651, p. 11.Google Scholar

30 See BGH, NJW 1880 seq. (2003), II. 2. a), II. 2. a) dd).Google Scholar

31 See, e.g., Tröndle/Fischer, StGB Commentary, § 261 note 3a (51st ed., 2003).Google Scholar

32 See BT-Drs. 12/989, p. 38 (translation by the authors).Google Scholar

33 See BGHSt 26, 298; 30, 317, 320; Nack, in Kommentar, Karlsruher, § 100a note 46 (4th ed., 1999). See also, Lemke, in Heidelberger Kommentar zur StPO § 100a note 16 (2001). Contra, Rudolphi, in Systematischer Kommentar zur StPO § 100a note 25 (2003). For a more cautious and generally reserved utilization in borderline cases, see, Prittwitz, Strafverteidiger (StV) 302 (1984).Google Scholar

34 See the recent and comprehensive publication by Jäger, , Beweisverwertung und Beweisverwertungsverbote im Strafprozess (2003).Google Scholar

35 See BGH, NJW 1883 (2003), II. 2. c).Google Scholar

36 In any case, for the assumption of a scope of interpretation pertaining to the elements of crime, see, BGH, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht (NStZ) 510 (1995), with critical notes in Bernsmann; Lemke, in Heidelberger Kommentar zur StPO § 100a note 10 (2001).Google Scholar

37 See Hufen, , Verwaltungsprozessrecht, § 24 note 20 (5th ed., 2003); Schenke, Verwaltungsprozessrecht, note 811 (8th ed., 2002).Google Scholar

38 See Krey, , in Blau-Festschrift 123, 124 (1985); Kudlich, Strafprozess und allgemeines Missbrauchsverbot 145 (1998).Google Scholar

39 See Hefendehl, , in Roxin-Festschrift,145, 169 (2001).Google Scholar