Accused person: clarify allegation and file first.
Do not give a spontaneous explanation before the allegation, file position and evidence are known. From a lawyer’s perspective, defence starts with file access and a reliable chronology.
Property crimes
Fraudulent data processing misuse under section 148a StGB
Section 148a StGB: fraudulent data processing misuse in online banking, phishing, booking systems and payment data.
Your personal attorney
Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Your lawyer for criminal defence
Criminal proceedings are a matter of trust. One lawyer who walks with you from the first consultation through to the trial, everything from one hand.
24 August 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt
Section 148a StGB concerns situations in which data processing is misused to cause a financial shift. In practice, this involves online banking, booking systems, payment processes, access credentials or manipulated electronic workflows.
This article explains from a lawyer’s perspective when fraudulent data processing misuse must be distinguished from classic fraud, falsification of data and general cybercrime allegations.
Stay informed. New notes from the Brandauer network and current articles are available at brandauer-news.at.
Quick assessment
Which question should be clarified first?
The first reaction depends on whether there is already a summons, a seizure or only an initial suspicion.
Already know that you want to send an inquiry? Go directly to the inquiry form.
Which situation fits best?
This assessment does not replace file access. It only helps to sort the first step.
All paths at a glance
Overview of all answers.
Prepare file access →
Business role: do not accept responsibility too early.
In a business, technical access, management responsibility and actual decision making may be separate. Roles, approvals and documentation routes must be reviewed separately.
Evidence: preserve original state and records.
If data, devices or documents have already been secured, records, copies, timing and scope matter. Only then can a remedy or statement be assessed.
Urgent situation: take the appointment seriously and stay calm.
A summons or official deadline is not a reason for improvised explanations. First check status, addressee and legal consequence of the letter.
When section 148a StGB becomes relevant in practice
When section 148a StGB becomes relevant in practice
Fraudulent data processing misuse is not triggered by the mere use of a computer or app. The key is that data processing is influenced in a legally relevant way and a financial loss results.
Typical questions concern access data, payment approvals, bookings, account movements and automated systems. It must be checked precisely which conduct is attributed to the accused person.
This article is deliberately narrower than the general cybercrime overview.
Distinction from fraud, data falsification and payment cards
Distinction from fraud, data falsification and payment cards
Classic fraud focuses on deception of a person. Under section 148a StGB, data processing itself becomes the central reference point.
Falsification of data under section 225a StGB concerns data with evidentiary function. Section 148a StGB focuses on the financial process. Payment cards or payment data may add separate offences.
The technical chronology is therefore important: input, approval, system reaction, payment and loss.
Preserve digital traces and account movements correctly
Preserve digital traces and account movements correctly
Relevant evidence includes log files, IP data, device access, bank approvals, TAN history, e-mail headers, booking data and account records. Screenshots alone are usually not enough.
Accused persons should not wipe devices or reinstall apps before the evidence position is secured. Affected persons should coordinate bank, payment provider and law enforcement steps.
If data or devices have been seized, the article on seizure and confiscation is useful.
Defence in online banking, phishing and system access cases
Defence in online banking, phishing and system access cases
Defence must clarify whether there was a technical act, third party access or misattribution. In phishing chains, several persons, devices and countries may be involved.
It is important not to replace technical evidence with moral explanation. Who had access, when approval occurred and how the system reacted must be provable.
From a lawyer’s perspective, file access, technical analysis and a sober chronology are the basis for any statement.
Overview
Review points under section 148a StGB
Quick assessment
| Point | Meaning | First question |
|---|---|---|
| System | data processing involved | Which system reacted? |
| Access | user or device | Who had access? |
| Approval | payment or booking | How was it triggered? |
| Loss | financial disadvantage | What actually left? |
Important: Do not reset devices, delete data or change accounts without coordination. Preserve the evidence position first.
Frequently asked questions
Fraudulent data processing misuse: key questions.
Is section 148a StGB the same as cybercrime? +
No. Cybercrime is broader. Section 148a StGB concerns financially harmful misuse of data processing.
Is phishing always section 148a StGB? +
Not automatically. It depends on the conduct, data process and financial loss that can be proven.
Which evidence matters first? +
Log files, bank approvals, device access, e-mail data, payment records and the technical chronology.
Topics
section 148a StGBcomputer fraudphishingonline bankingpayment datacybercrime
Interview, house search, indictment?
In criminal matters every hour counts. Call us directly or send an email, callback within one business day, earlier in urgent cases.
Contact
A direct line to the firm.
Address
BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg
Phone
+43 660 2407152