Active repentance for property damage: compensation under section 167 StGB

Section 125 StGB covers destroying, damaging, disfiguring or rendering unusable another person’s property. The basic offence carries up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 360 daily rates. Whether property was actually damaged and what restoration requires must be assessed from the concrete condition of the item.

Section 126 StGB may apply to special items or higher losses as aggravated property damage. The classification depends, among other things, on the item and the amount of damage. Repair does not automatically change the original allegation, but it can become important for the further legal assessment.

Section 167 StGB expressly names property damage. Active repentance can remove criminal liability if the statutory requirements are met. Under the main rule, before the authority has learned of the culpability, the offender must compensate the entire loss. Alternatively, the offender may undertake by contract to compensate it fully within a specified period. If that undertaking is not kept, criminal liability becomes active again.

Compensation must cover the entire loss caused by the act. A partial payment or an open-ended promise to arrange a repair therefore does not automatically qualify. Section 167 StGB allows compensation after pressure from the injured person, but it must not be made under coercion. The statutory variants involving a self-report and compensation by a third party also have their own requirements.

In practice, whether the authority knew is a question of fact. A police report and documented knowledge by a criminal justice authority can be decisive. The relevant point must not simply be equated with a later interview of the suspect.

If the allegation is already known, the special effect of section 167 StGB may no longer be available. Repair or payment remains an important part of the defence strategy. Under section 34(1) nos. 14 and 15 StGB, compensation and serious efforts to compensate can be considered as mitigating factors. The court assesses this within the overall sentencing decision.

Diversion under sections 198 et seq. StPO may also be considered. Section 198 StPO links diversion to a sufficiently clarified case, the permissible penalty range, culpability and the assessment of special and general prevention. Payment therefore does not automatically produce diversion. In victim-offender mediation, compensation can be part of a structured solution.

The injured person does not have to treat payment as a waiver of every further claim. Civil claims, repair costs and the criminal assessment must be examined separately. A written agreement should therefore state its subject, amount, payment date and intended effect clearly.

First secure photographs or videos of the damage, repair estimates, invoices, messages and the contact details of potential witnesses. Note when the damage occurred, when you learned of it and when the injured person or an authority may have learned of it. This chronology is particularly important for section 167 StGB.

Avoid broad messages such as “I will pay everything” where the amount, cause or involvement has not yet been clarified. This does not mean delaying fair compensation. It means keeping payment, facts and any criminal statement separate so that unnecessary contradictions are avoided.

If a summons, seizure or interview is pending, include file access under section 51 StPO and the main-trial procedure in the preparation. As an accused person, you should not make a premature statement on the facts.

The key provisions are section 125 StGB on property damage, section 126 StGB on aggravated property damage, section 167 StGB on active repentance, section 34 StGB on mitigating factors and section 198 StPO on diversion. The current RIS texts are available here: section 125 StGB, section 126 StGB, section 167 StGB, section 34 StGB and section 198 StPO.

The statutory text sets out the requirements. Whether they are met in a particular investigation depends on the file, the loss calculation, the timing of authority knowledge and the suspect’s conduct.