Definition and legal classification of procedural fraud
The term procedural fraud refers to a specific form of fraud pursuant to Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) in the context of judicial or administrative proceedings. Procedural fraud occurs when a party, in the course of proceedings, deliberately makes false statements, forges evidence, or otherwise seeks to influence the proceedings by deception in order to obtain a decision that is advantageous but unlawful. The punishability of procedural fraud is part of the general offense of fraud, but it includes specific features resulting from its procedural context.
Elements of procedural fraud
Characteristics of procedural fraud
The criminal assessment of procedural fraud is fundamentally guided by the elements of Section 263 StGB:
- Deception about facts: The perpetrator intentionally deceives the court or an authority regarding circumstances that are material to the decision, for example, by making false statements or submitting forged documents.
- Inducing an error: The deception must cause an error on the part of the court or authority. They must at least partly believe the false representation.
- Disposition over assets: On the basis of this error, a disposition is made, such as a judgment, order, or administrative act.
- Financial loss: The disposition results in an economic disadvantage for the opposing party or a third person.
- Intent and intention to gain benefit: The perpetrator must act intentionally and aim to unlawfully obtain a financial advantage for themselves or a third party.
Specifics in the procedural context
Unlike general fraud, the particularity of procedural fraud lies in the fact that the error is not caused directly in the injured party, but usually in the deciding court or authority. Triggered by the deception, the court decides to the detriment of one party, who typically suffers the loss.
Procedural fraud in civil and criminal proceedings
Significance in civil proceedings
In civil cases, procedural fraud often occurs through false party submissions, submission of forged documents, or manipulated evidence. If the court is deceived regarding the true facts and passes judgment in favor of the deceiver, a completed procedural fraud exists, provided the decision has economic consequences.
Significance in criminal proceedings
In criminal proceedings, procedural fraud can occur, for example, through deliberately false statements by witnesses or defendants or through the submission of forged evidence. This is particularly relevant in cases of false testimony that influence the outcome of the criminal trial.
Attempt, completion, and criminal consequences
Attempted and completed procedural fraud
Procedural fraud can be punishable both in its attempted and completed form. An attempt exists when the act of deception has been carried out, but no financial loss has yet occurred—such as when the court has not yet fallen for the deception or no decision has been issued.
Range of penalties and possible sanctions
Procedural fraud is punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or by a fine (Section 263 StGB). In particularly serious cases, such as large-scale fraud, the penalty can be up to ten years imprisonment. In addition to criminal sanctions, the perpetrator may also be civilly liable to compensate the loss caused.
Distinction from other offenses
Procedural fraud and false unsworn testimony or perjury
Procedural fraud must be distinguished from the offense of false unsworn testimony (Section 153 StGB) and perjury (Section 154 StGB). While these offenses focus on untrue statements in court, procedural fraud concerns targeted deception with the aim of causing financial harm through a judicial decision. In certain situations, these criminal offenses may be cumulative.
Procedural fraud and forgery of documents
An overlap with forgery of documents (Section 267 StGB) occurs when forged evidence or documents are submitted to the court. In such cases, criminal liability may exist both for forgery and for procedural fraud.
Procedural fraud in administrative proceedings
Procedural fraud can also occur in administrative proceedings, for example, if false information is submitted to an authority in order to unlawfully obtain an administrative act—such as a permit or funding commitment. The principles correspond to those of procedural fraud in judicial proceedings.
Procedural aspects and consequences
Annulment of judgments after procedural fraud
If procedural fraud is uncovered after the fact, this may lead to a challenge or annulment of the judicial decision. In civil proceedings, Section 580 No. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) provides for reinstatement of proceedings in such cases. The party that was disadvantaged by the decision may apply for the proceedings to be reopened if the fraud is subsequently established.
Reporting and prosecution
Detection and prosecution of procedural fraud regularly require a report by an injured party or third party. Once reported, the state investigating authorities are obliged to conduct their own investigation. The proceedings are governed by the general rules of criminal procedure.
Legal policy considerations and practical significance
Procedural fraud represents a significant problem for the functioning of the rule of law, as judicial decision-making relies on the preservation of truth and trust. Consistent prosecution of this offense serves not only to protect the assets of individuals, but also the integrity of the entire justice system.
Literature and further information
For an in-depth study of procedural fraud, relevant commentaries and monographs on criminal law are recommended, as well as the case law of the Federal Court of Justice and the Higher Regional Courts, which regularly issue landmark decisions on doubtful cases and distinctions between related offenses.
Summary: Procedural fraud is a specific form of fraud that is committed in the context of judicial or administrative proceedings by means of deception in order to obtain a decision or administrative act causing financial loss. It is subject to the general rules of criminal fraud law, but exhibits procedural specifics. Penalizing and preventing procedural fraud are central prerequisites for trust in state court proceedings and the maintenance of legal peace.
Frequently asked questions
What penalties can be imposed following a conviction for procedural fraud?
Anyone convicted of procedural fraud pursuant to Section 263 StGB (German Criminal Code) must generally expect a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine. In especially serious cases—such as if the perpetrator acts on a commercial basis or as part of a gang—the penalty can range from six months to ten years. In addition to criminal penalties, there may also be civil consequences such as claims for damages and reversal of processually obtained advantages. For civil servants, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated, which can even result in dismissal from service.
When does a particularly serious case of procedural fraud exist?
According to settled case law, a particularly serious case of procedural fraud exists regularly when aggravating circumstances such as commercial activity, large financial losses, abuse of a position of trust, or repeat offending are present. These circumstances are listed illustratively in Section 263 paragraph 3 sentence 2 StGB. The court decides on a case-by-case basis, taking all circumstances into account, whether the indicators for a particularly serious case are met. High criminal energy and systematic deception of courts can also lead to an increase in the penalty.
What procedural means of defense are available in the event of an accusation of procedural fraud?
Defense in criminal proceedings for procedural fraud generally focuses on several points. First, examination of the subjective element of the offense—especially intent and the aim to induce error—is central. It must be clarified whether the accused actually acted with intent to harm or merely made false statements negligently, as the latter is not sufficient for criminal liability. Further, the scope of the factual presentation and its causality for the financial loss can be scrutinized. In civil proceedings, clarification of the facts can be deepened, for example, by motions for evidence or obtaining expert opinions. In the preliminary proceedings, procedural errors or possible limitation periods should also be pointed out.
How does procedural fraud affect already concluded court proceedings?
A judgment obtained by means of procedural fraud may, in principle, be challenged by reopening proceedings under Section 580 ZPO (Code of Civil Procedure) or Section 359 StPO (Code of Criminal Procedure). If procedural fraud is established, the underlying judgment can be set aside and the proceedings reopened. The effects are significant: Not only is the unlawfully acquired benefit taken away from the perpetrator, but there can also be civil claims for damages in favor of the injured party. Additionally, criminal consequences including imprisonment may ensue.
What role do witnesses and documents play in connection with procedural fraud?
Testimony from witnesses and documents is central to many cases of procedural fraud. False statements by witnesses or manipulated documents submitted to the court as evidence may form the basis for deception and thus for procedural fraud. However, it must be proved in each individual case that the defendant deliberately sought to deceive the court and thereby intended to cause financial loss. The intentional submission of a forged or altered document may also fulfill a separate criminal offense (forgery of documents, Section 267 StGB), which could result in separate criminal prosecution.
Can a Rechtsanwalt himself be held liable for procedural fraud?
Yes, a Rechtsanwalt can, in principle, be criminally prosecuted for procedural fraud if they actively participate in deceiving the court or the opposing party, such as by deliberately submitting false or manipulated documents or intentionally falsifying facts. However, participation requires intent; mere error or representation based on client information alone does not suffice for criminal liability. In addition, professional consequences may include loss of admission to the bar (§ 7 BRAO).
What is the relationship between procedural fraud and attempted fraud?
Attempted procedural fraud is also punishable under German law (Section 263 paragraph 2 StGB). Initiating proceedings or submitting false evidence with intent to deceive suffices, even if the intended procedural or economic advantage does not actually occur. Penalties for attempt may be less severe, but criminal liability is established with the attempt. However, the step from preparation to execution must be clearly exceeded, for example, by making false statements to the court.
