strafsachen.at
DE EN BKS
Menü
White-collar crime

Grossly negligent impairment of creditor interests under section 159 StGB: elements and defence

Grossly negligent impairment of creditor interests under section 159 StGB: elements, typical conduct patterns.

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.

Call directly +43 660 2407152 WhatsApp Send email
Book consultation
2 July 2026 · Mag. Christopher Angerer, Rechtsanwalt

Grossly negligent impairment of creditor interests under section 159 StGB sanctions the causing or aggravating of a debtor's insolvency through grossly negligent conduct. It typically concerns managing directors, board members and sole traders in the crisis of an undertaking.

This post explains from a legal perspective the elements, typical conduct patterns and the delineation from fraudulent bankruptcy under section 156 StGB and prejudicing other creditors under section 157 StGB. This is general information, not advice in an individual case.

What is your situation regarding the section 159 StGB charge?

Four constellations, one clear next step.

Whether opened insolvency, administrator complaint, speculation allegation or delineation question: choose the constellation that applies to you.

Already know you want to send an enquiry? Go straight to the contact form.

01 Question 1

What is your situation regarding the section 159 StGB charge?

From a legal perspective the precise constellation determines the next step. Choose the situation that applies to you.

All paths at a glance

Overview of all answers.

01

Insolvency opened: systematically secure records and the business trajectory.

Once insolvency proceedings are opened, section 159 StGB regularly enters the focus of the prosecuting authorities. From a legal perspective it is decisive to document the business trajectory of recent years, the liquidity situation and the entrepreneurial decisions in a traceable way. Only those who breach the duty of care customary in business in a particularly grave manner act with gross negligence.

An early preparation of balance sheets, cashflow data and restructuring efforts provides the foundation to rebut the allegation of gross negligence or to narrow its scope.

In depth: elements of section 159 StGB →
02

Complaint by the insolvency administrator: review the report and build a counter-position.

Complaints by insolvency administrators are often based on the insolvency report and the review of business records. From a legal perspective the report must be examined in detail, since it typically collects economic indicators of payment stoppage, dissipation or reckless use of credit. These indicators are not conclusive; they can be unsettled or interpreted differently.

The defence should confront the administrator's report with its own submissions, expert assessments and commercial key figures rather than confine itself to a general denial.

In depth: typical conduct patterns →
03

Speculative losses: distinguish entrepreneurial risk from gross negligence.

Entrepreneurial decisions involve risk. Not every loss from speculative transactions is therefore grossly negligent. From a legal perspective it depends on whether the decision was defensible at the time it was taken and whether the magnitude of the risk still lay within the bounds of ordinary commercial care.

The threshold to gross negligence is crossed only where the breach of the duty of care is particularly grave and taking the risk was manifestly unreasonable for a prudent business person.

In depth: typical conduct patterns →
04

Delineation from sections 156 and 157: clarify intent versus gross negligence.

The delineation between grossly negligent bankruptcy under section 159 StGB and fraudulent bankruptcy under section 156 StGB lies in the subjective element. While section 156 requires intentional conduct, gross negligence suffices for section 159. From a legal perspective the clean separation of these levels is often the most important defence goal, because the penalty for intentional bankruptcy is markedly higher.

Prejudicing other creditors under section 157 StGB must likewise be distinguished, since it targets the intentional preference of individual creditors and pursues a different protective purpose.

In depth: delineation from sections 156 and 157 StGB →

Elements of section 159 StGB

Section 159 StGB applies to a person who grossly negligently brings about the insolvency of a debtor or who, knowing of or in negligent ignorance of an insolvency already occurred, grossly negligently frustrates or diminishes the satisfaction of the creditors or at least of one of them.

A person acts grossly negligent if they breach the duty of care customary in business in a particularly grave manner. Not every breach of care suffices; the charge attaches to a markedly heightened degree of carelessness or recklessness.

The basic penalty is imprisonment of up to one year. In the qualified case, for instance where the conduct harms a larger number of persons, imprisonment of up to two years applies.

Typical conduct patterns

The statute names several typical conduct patterns: excessive speculation with business assets, incurring excessive liabilities or excessive expenditure, dissipation of asset components and reckless use of credit. In every case it concerns economically unreasonable conduct in an already strained situation.

From a legal perspective the assessment of these conduct patterns is always a question of the concrete circumstances. A credit-financed investment may be appropriate or reckless depending on industry, market conditions and business model. Sweeping retrospective evaluations often miss the core of the entrepreneurial decision.

Criminal prosecution often relies on indicators from the insolvency report and on balance sheet figures. The defence must contextualise these indicators and link them to the economic situation at the time of decision, rather than confine itself to mere denial.

Delineation from sections 156 and 157 StGB

Fraudulent bankruptcy under section 156 StGB presupposes intentional conduct. The perpetrator must intentionally diminish or conceal assets in order to hinder creditors from obtaining satisfaction. Grossly negligent bankruptcy under section 159 StGB differs on the subjective level: it requires neither intent to harm nor intentional diminution of assets.

Prejudicing other creditors under section 157 StGB targets the intentional preference of one creditor to the detriment of others. Here too the subjective benchmark is intent, not gross negligence. This delineation matters because penalties and protected interests differ.

From a legal perspective the careful examination whether the public prosecutor overextends indicators of intent is often worthwhile. A successful reclassification from section 156 to section 159 StGB materially changes the sentencing range and can significantly influence the conduct of the proceedings.

Clarify the standard of care. Under section 159 StGB the question is whether the breach of care actually weighs particularly heavily. A careful reconstruction of the entrepreneurial decision situation is the most important foundation of the defence.

Frequently asked questions

What you need to know about section 159 StGB.

What does grossly negligent mean under section 159 StGB? +

A person acts grossly negligent if they breach the duty of care customary in business in a particularly grave manner. Simple negligence or entrepreneurial misjudgement does not suffice; a markedly heightened degree of carelessness must be shown.

What penalty does section 159 StGB carry? +

The basic offence provides for imprisonment of up to one year. In the qualified case, for example where a larger number of persons is harmed, the penalty rises to imprisonment of up to two years.

What distinguishes section 159 from fraudulent bankruptcy section 156 StGB? +

Fraudulent bankruptcy requires intent and targets the deliberate diminution of assets to the detriment of creditors. Section 159 captures grossly negligent conduct without intent to harm, with a markedly lower penalty.

What role does the insolvency administrator play in criminal proceedings? +

The insolvency administrator is frequently the source of a complaint, because indicators of bankruptcy emerge during the review of business records. The administrator's report is an important means of proof in the criminal proceedings, but can be relativised by own submissions and expert assessments.

Are speculative losses automatically punishable? +

No. Entrepreneurial risk decisions are not punishable as such. Only where the risk taken was manifestly unreasonable in the concrete situation and the breach of care weighs particularly heavily does section 159 StGB come into consideration.

What must be observed in insolvency proceedings? +

Criminal proceedings may run alongside insolvency proceedings. Statements and documents from the insolvency proceedings may be used in the criminal proceedings. Early criminal-law support prevents inadvertent self-incriminating statements.

Related topics

You might also be interested in

Fraudulent bankruptcy under section 156 StGB

Intentional diminution of assets to the detriment of creditors at a glance.

What to do after a criminal complaint in Austria

The first steps when criminal proceedings are initiated against you.

Topics
section 159 StGBgrossly negligent bankruptcycreditor interestsinsolvencybusiness criminal lawdefence

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.

+43 660 2407152 [email protected]
Contact

A direct line to the firm.

Address

BRANDAUER Rechtsanwälte GmbH Giselakai 51 5020 Salzburg