Confiscation order invalid in security proceedings

BGH 5 StR 119/17Bgh / Criminal Chamber 526 de abr. de 2017Modified

Abrir fonte

Extraído pela Omnilex

Resumo Omnilex

The Federal Court of Justice held that a self-standing confiscation order under § 76a(2) sentence 1 no. 2 StGB cannot be made in security proceedings under § 413 StPO. It is permissible only in separate confiscation proceedings under § 440(1) StPO, which require a separate application. Because that application had not been filed, the confiscation order could not stand. The revision was otherwise unsuccessful, and the appellant had to bear the costs of the remedy.

Sumário Omnilex

§ 76a Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2, § 74 Abs. 2 Nr. 2, Abs. 3 StGB; § 413, § 440 Abs. 1 StPO; self-standing confiscation in security proceedings: A confiscation order of an object is not admissible in security proceedings under § 413 StPO, but only in separate confiscation proceedings under § 440 Abs. 1 StPO. The separate application required by § 440 Abs. 1 StPO is a procedural prerequisite; if it is absent, the confiscation order cannot be upheld. A merely partial success of the revision does not, without more, justify a partial exemption from the costs and expenses of the appeal (consid. 1, 2).

Texto completo

BGH — 5 StR 119/17, Beschluss

Entscheidungsdatum: 2017-04-26

Aktenzeichen: 5 StR 119/17

ECLI: ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:260417B5STR119.17.0

Dokumenttyp: Beschluss

Normen: § 74 Abs 2 Nr 2 StGB, § 74 Abs 3 StGB, § 76a Abs 2 S 1 Nr 2 StGB, § 413 StPO, § 440 Abs 1 StPO

Vorinstanz: vorgehend LG Berlin, 14. Dezember 2016, Az: 537 KLs 27/16

Spruchkörper: 5. Strafsenat

Titelzeile

Sicherungsverfahren: Wirksamkeit einer Einziehungsanordnung

Tenor

Die Revision des Beschuldigten gegen das Urteil des Landgerichts Berlin vom 14. Dezember 2016 wird mit der Maßgabe als unbegründet verworfen, dass die Einziehungsentscheidung entfällt.

Der Beschwerdeführer hat die Kosten des Rechtsmittels zu tragen.

Gründe

1 Die getroffene Einziehungsentscheidung hat keinen Bestand. Die selbstständige Einziehung eines Gegenstands gemäß § 76a Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 2 StGB i.V.m. § 74 Abs. 2 Nr. 2, Abs. 3 StGB ist nicht im Sicherungsverfahren nach § 413 StPO, sondern nur im selbständigen Einziehungsverfahren gemäß § 440 Abs. 1 StPO möglich (vgl. BGH, Beschluss vom 16. August 2016 – 5 StR 309/16 mwN). Da der nach § 440 Abs. 1 StPO erforderliche gesonderte Antrag nicht gestellt worden ist, fehlt es für eine Einziehung an einer Verfahrensvoraussetzung.

2 Der geringfügige Teilerfolg der Revision rechtfertigt es nicht, den Beschuldigten teilweise von den durch das Rechtsmittel entstandenen Kosten und Auslagen freizustellen (§ 473 Abs. 4 StPO).

MutzbauerSanderDölp
KönigMosbacher

Palavras-chave

confiscationsecurity proceedingsseparate applicationprocedural prerequisiterevisioncosts

Extraído pela Omnilex

Questões jurídicas principais extraídas pela Omnilex

Questão jurídica principal

Whether a self-standing confiscation order under § 76a(2) sentence 1 no. 2 StGB may be made in security proceedings under § 413 StPO.

Decisão extraída

No. Such a confiscation order is only possible in separate confiscation proceedings under § 440(1) StPO; because no separate request had been filed, a procedural prerequisite was missing.

Fundamentação extraída

The procedural framework distinguishes security proceedings from independent confiscation proceedings. Without the request required by § 440(1) StPO, the court lacks the procedural basis for confiscation.

Questão jurídica principal

Whether the appellant should be partially exempted from the costs and expenses caused by the appeal.

Decisão extraída

No. The minor partial success of the revision did not justify relieving the appellant of part of the costs and expenses.

Fundamentação extraída

The court held that the limited success regarding the confiscation order was not sufficient for a partial costs exemption under § 473(4) StPO.

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.