Handling stolen goods under section 164 StGB: concealing, negotiating, taking possession

Section 164 StGB distinguishes three variants. Concealment means withholding the item from lawful access; taking possession covers acquisition into one's own custody; negotiating or assisting in disposal covers the promotion of resale by the predicate offender or a third party.

The predicate offence must be an offence against the property of another, for instance theft, robbery, embezzlement or fraud. The exact legal classification of the predicate offence need not be known; the perpetrator must however know the essential circumstances of the criminal origin or at least consider it seriously possible and accept it.

From a legal perspective the subjective element, that is the intent regarding the criminal origin, is often the decisive defence point. The intent must exist at the time of the conduct; subsequent knowledge does not suffice.

Commercial handling exists where the perpetrator commits handling with the intent to procure a continuing source of income through its recurring commission. In criminal proceedings this qualification is frequently the decisive lever for a markedly higher penalty.

From a legal perspective commerciality is not merely a question of quantity. Repeated transactions cannot fulfil the offence without the subjective will to make it a source of income. A careful preparation of the economic structure of the alleged transactions is therefore a defence task in its own right.

Indicators such as the number of transactions, their temporal distribution, the share of the cost of living and prior experience are used but are not conclusive. The will to make it a source of income must be plausible from the overall circumstances.

The basic offence of section 164 StGB provides for imprisonment of up to two years. Where the value of the handled item exceeds 5,000 euro, the penalty rises to imprisonment of up to three years. Where the value exceeds 300,000 euro or where commercial commission is given, the penalty can be markedly higher.

These value thresholds attach to the objective value of the handled item. From a legal perspective the valuation is therefore a separate point of dispute. List prices, market values and the condition of the item all play a role.

Where there are several handling acts, it must be examined whether the values are to be aggregated and whether a unified intent exists. The bundling of several events into a qualified overall offence is not self-evident and must be justified.