Abstract
This chapter analyses the German legislative process and the specific national legislature’s motivations for the criminalisation of money laundering and for widening of the reach of the offence. It focuses on the parliamentarian debate that resulted in the introduction of Article 261 in the German Criminal Code (GCC), and on the main issues that raised along the legislative process, also with regard to the approval and the changing of the preventive regime.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The German Democratic Republic had signed and ratified the Convention on 21 June 1989 and 21 February 1990, respectively. The Convention was ratified by unified Germany on 30 November 1993.
- 2.
BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 12.
- 3.
Yet whether the federal state was bound under international law directly by the Vienna Convention or by the EC Directive is controversial. See Helmers 2009, p. 509.
- 4.
BGBI I 1992, 1302.
- 5.
Remmers 1998, p. 28.
- 6.
In 1992, for example, 2096 people died from abuse of drugs, with an estimated 150 000 addicted to drugs. These disturbing figures, and the harm it did to the fabric of society, necessitated the state to intensify its war on drugs. In BT-Drucks 11/5525, pp. 2 ss.
- 7.
BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 20.
- 8.
Aepfelbach and Fülbier 1994, p. 2.
- 9.
BT-Drucks 12/2720, p. 2.
- 10.
Aepfelbach and Fülbier 1994, pp. 4–5.
- 11.
Aepfelbach and Fülbier 1994, p. 2.
- 12.
‘Die Einschleusung von Vermögengegenständen aus Organisierter Kriminalität in den legal Finanz- und Wirtschaftskreislauf zum Zweck der Tarnung’. See BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 26; BT-Drucks 13/8651, p. 9; similar BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 11.
- 13.
GwG-Nestler 2014, § 261, mn 3.
- 14.
BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 26; BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 12.
- 15.
BT-Drucks 12/2720, p. 2.
- 16.
Nestler 2010, GwG-Herzog, § 261, mn 12, 13.
- 17.
In the second purpose, the legislature included later also the fight against terrorism. See NK-Altenhain 2013, § 261, mn. 7.
- 18.
BR-Drucks 74/90; BR-Drucks 83/90.
- 19.
BT-Drucks 11/7663.
- 20.
- 21.
BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 20.
- 22.
The states of Baden-Württemberg and Bayern proposed a new draft law that elicited a lively debate among the representatives of the different states. The debate is reported in an official document of the Bundesrat. See Bundesrat 1991, pp. 139–151. The two Bundesländer Baden-Württemberg and Bayern stressed the urgency of introducing the proposed legal novelties in order to preserve the security of the citizens. The Baden-Württemberg Minister of the Interior, Schlee, of the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) stressed that the recent growth of organised crime and drug criminality was alarming, with the percentage of victims of drug abuse having increased by 50% between 1989 and 1990. In addition, he pointed to the need to protect victims of theft stemming from organised crime, especially the elderly who were vulnerable to burglaries. Given the severe danger that organised crime posed to society, he argued that state action was necessary to safeguard the safety of the people and for purposes of implementing a social policy. Schlee maintained that new laws, such as those pertaining to the crime of money laundering, were required to remove the financial incentive to commit further crimes. In his opinion, organised crime required more urgent attention than the issue of terrorism and the law relating to refugees. He said that terrorism could be dealt with by way of tackling organised crime, as the two were linked. Stoiber of the Christian Social Union (CSU) of Bavaria supported the argument by pointing to what was happening in the US and Italy at the time. He said that in Italy, organised crime had contaminated the society, undermined the integrity of the state, had resulted in an increase in taxes, and threatened the personal security of every citizen. He said that businesses run by the Mafia in the US made up 1.1% of the GDP of the US. He went on to say that, the German media was devoting little attention to the fact that white collar crime in the form of money laundering manifested itself silently in European financial centres. Finally, he described the draft law as a compromise, but still as a fundamental sign of engagement against organised crime that could not be ignored. Other political parties responded to these arguments, emphasising that these emergencies could be dealt with subject to upholding the fundamental principles underpinning the criminal justice system. Walter, a Social Democratic deputy from Saarland, opposed the introduction of the draft law by saying that the new provisions would give law enforcement agencies too wide a discretion in dealing with organised crime, thus infringing the rule of law. Kröning, Social Democratic Party deputy from Bremen, highlighted the conflict between safeguarding security and upholding the rule of law. While acknowledging the necessity of taking measures to combat organised crime, he argued that such measures should not violate constitutional principles. He warned that because the new instruments relied on the expertise of law enforcement agencies, which was lacking at the time, the effectiveness of the measures could be undermined. However, given the fact that a compromise was needed, and that Parliament had spent the last three quarters of the year dealing with other issues, he proposed that an agreement be reached in line with the compromise put forward by the parliamentary legal committee. Hohmann-Denhardt, a Social Democratic Party deputy from Hesse, welcomed the draft law subject to secret criminal procedural investigative instruments being limited. He contended that there could not be any compromise on the rule of law. Trittin, a representative of the Alliance90/The Greens Party from Lower Saxony, who was comfortable with the draft law despite the complexity of the issue, but refused to endorse the new investigative rules, took the same approach. The Minister of Justice Kinkel of the Free Democratic Party (FDP) confirmed the complexity of the thematic issues raised by the Bill and recalled that the complexity of the issues cropped up also in the coalition agreement. Yet he underlined the importance of introducing the money-laundering offence in order to allow the confiscation of proceeds of crime thereby making the commission of offences less attractive. The Minister addressed the House by recalling the murder of Rohwedder by the Rote Armee Fraktion (Rohwedder was the president of the governmental agency charged with the task of privatising East German enterprises, the ‘Treuhandstalt’ (trust agency), who was killed on 1 April 1991 by the Rote Armee Fraktion) and the threat posed by terrorism. Yet he argued that a constitutional state based on the rule of law (Rechtstaat) should not violate the rule of law when defending itself from terrorist attacks. In fact, he undertook that, together with Schäuble, the then Minister of Internal Affairs, they were building a ‘militant democracy’ and therefore wanted to avoid exercising control over the citizens or groups of them. The Minister of Justice welcomed the introduction of the secret investigations and the Rasterfahndung (computer-based research of suspects), but said that the assembly should not arouse wrong public reactions. In conclusion, the Minister pleaded for the reaching of a compromise on the draft law, given the difficulty of the situation and the lack of other solutions. The exact result of the vote can be found in Bundesrat 1991, p. 151. The new text was then drafted and proposed to the Parliament; see BR-Drucks 219/91.
- 23.
Sotiriadis 2010, p. 173.
- 24.
- 25.
BT-Drucks 12/731.
- 26.
The current offence reads as follow: (1) Whosoever hides an object which is a proceed of an unlawful act listed in the 2nd sentence below, conceals its origin or obstructs or endangers the investigation of its origin, its being found, its confiscation, its deprivation or its being officially secured shall be liable to imprisonment from 3 months to 5 years. Unlawful acts within the meaning of the 1st sentence shall be 1. felonies; 2. misdemeanours under (a) Section 332(1), also in conjunction with subsection (3), and Section 334; (b) Section 29(1) 1st sentence No 1 of the Drugs Act and Section 19(1) No 1 of the Drug Precursors (Control) Act; 3. misdemeanours under Section 373 and under Section 374(2) of the Fiscal Code, and also in conjunction with Section 12(1) of the Common Market Organisations and Direct Payments (Implementation) Act; 4. misdemeanours (a) under Section 152a, Section 181a, Section 232(1) and (2), Section 233(1) and (2), Section 233a, Section 242, Section 246, Section 253, Section 259, Sections 263–264, Section 266, Section 267, Section 269, Section 271, Section 284, Section 326(1), (2) and (4), Section 328(1), (2) and (4) and Section 348; (b) under Section 96 of the Residence Act and Section 84 of the Asylum Procedure Act and Section 370 of the Fiscal Code, Section 38(1)–(3) and (5) of the Securities Trading Act as well as Sections 143, 143a and 144 of the Act on the Protection of Trade Marks and other Symbols, 106–108b of the Act on Copyright and Related Rights, 25 of the Utility Models Act, 51 and 65 of the Design Act, 142 of the Patent Act, 10 of the Semiconductor Protection Act and 39 of the Plant Variety Rights (Protection) Act. which were committed on a commercial basis or by a member of a gang whose purpose is the continued commission of such offences; and 5. misdemeanours under Section 89a and under Section 129 and Section 129a(3) and (5), all of which also in conjunction with Section 129b(1), as well as misdemeanours committed by a member of a criminal or terrorist organisation (Section 129 and Section 129a, all of which also in conjunction with Section 129b(1)). The 1st sentence shall apply in cases of tax evasion committed on a commercial basis or as a gang under Section 370 of the Fiscal Code, to expenditure saved by virtue of the tax evasion, of unlawfully acquired tax repayments and allowances, and in cases under the 2nd sentence no 3 the 1st sentence shall also apply to an object in relation to which fiscal charges have been evaded. (2) Whosoever 1. procures an object indicated in subsection (1) above for himself or a third person; or 2. keeps an object indicated in subsection (1) above in his custody or uses it for himself or a third person if he knew the origin of the object at the time of obtaining possession of it shall incur the same penalty. (3) The attempt shall be punishable. (4) In especially serious cases the penalty shall be imprisonment from 6 months to 10 years. An especially serious case typically occurs if the offender acts on a commercial basis or as a member of a gang whose purpose is the continued commission of money laundering. (5) Whosoever, in cases under subsections (1) or (2) above is, through gross negligence, unaware of the fact that the object is a proceed from an unlawful act named in subsection (1) above shall be liable to imprisonment of not more than two years or a fine. (6) The act shall not be punishable under subsection (2) above if a third person previously acquired the object without having thereby committed an offence. (7) Objects to which the offence relates may be subject to a deprivation order. Section 74a shall apply. Section 73d shall apply if the offender acts on a commercial basis or as a member of a gang whose purpose is the continued commission of money laundering. (8) Objects which are proceeds from an offence listed in subsection (1) above committed abroad shall be equivalent to the objects indicated in subsections (1), (2) and (5) above if the offence is also punishable at the place of its commission. (9) Whosoever 1. voluntarily reports the offence to the competent public authority or voluntarily causes such a report to be made, unless the act had already been discovered in whole or in part at the time and the offender knew this or could reasonably have known and 2. in cases under subsections (1) or (2) above under the conditions named in No 1 above causes the object to which the offence relates to be officially secured shall not be liable under subsections (1)–(5) above. Whosoever is liable because of his participation in the antecedent act shall not be liable under subsections (1)–(5) above, either.
- 27.
BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 10.
- 28.
BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 11.
- 29.
The original wording is the following: systematische Tarnung von Vermögenswerten mit den Mitteln des Finanzmarktes, um sie dem Zugriff der Strafverfolgungsorgane zu entziehen und in ihrem wirtschaftlichen Wert zu erhalten. BT-Drucks 12/3533, p. 12.
- 30.
According to some scholars, the provision criminalises three typologies of conduct: the concealing offence described in Article 261(1) of the GCC, the avoidance of prosecution and confiscation, according to Article 261(1) 1, 2 of the GCC, and the isolation conduct regulated in Article 261(2) of the GCC. See NK-Altenhain 2013, § 261, mn. 8, 9.
- 31.
See NK-Altenhain 2013, § 261, mn. 43.
- 32.
BT-Drucks 989, p. 27.
- 33.
BT-Drucks 12/2720, p. 43.
- 34.
BT-Drucks 12/731, p. 3.
- 35.
See NK-Altenhain 2013, § 261, mn. 49.
- 36.
See NK-Altenhain 2013, § 261, mn. 48.
- 37.
BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 27.
- 38.
BT-Drucks 12/989, p. 26; BR-Drucks 507/92. See also Müko-Neuheuser 2012, § 216, mn. 2, 3.
- 39.
Article 1, BGBI I S. 2025.
- 40.
BGH NStZ 1995, 500. See also Schmidt and Krause 2010, StGB-Fischer, § 261, mn. 50.
- 41.
See, in particular, Schröder 2013. The German federal bar association published an official opinion on the proposal of excluding the exemption of punishment pursuant to Article 261(9) 2 of the GCC, in which it expressed a strong scepticism. In particular, the bar association argues that the novelty would have been constitutional illegitimate because it would have infringed the principles of ne bis in idem and of legality. Bundesrechtsanwaltkammer 2015, p. 3.
- 42.
Article 1 of the GVVG-Änderungsgesetz (GVVG-ÄndG) of 12/06/15, BGBI I S. 926.
- 43.
BT-Drucks 449/14.
- 44.
Article 1 of the Achtundvierzigstes Strafrechtsänderungsgesetz-Erweiterung des Straftatbestandes der Abgeordnetenbestechung of 23/04/14, BGBl. I S. 410.
- 45.
BGBI I 676.
- 46.
BGBI I 37.
- 47.
Other amendments were introduced with the Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Bekämpfung der Geldwäsche und der Bekämpfung der Finanzierung des Terrorismus, Geldwäschebekämpfungsgesetz, BGBl I 02, 3105. Other major amendments to Article 261 were introduced by the Steuerverkürzungsbekämpfungsgesetz of 2002, the Gesetz zur Neuregelung der Telekommunikationsüberwachung of 2008, the Gesetz zur Ergänzung der Bekämpfung der Geldwäsche und der Terrorismusfinanzierung of 2008, which implemented the Directive 2005/60/EC, the Geldwäschebekämpfungsergänzungsgesetz, GwBekErgG of 2008, the Gesetz zur Verfolgung der Vorbereitung von schweren staatsgefährdenden Gewalttaten of 2009, which established the financing of terrorism as predicate offence for money laundering. BGBI I, 3922; BGBI I, 3198; BGBI I, 1690. See also amendments introduced with the Gesetz zur Verbesserung der Bekämpfung der Organisierten Kriminalität, BGBI I 845.
- 48.
Remmers 1998, p. 45.
- 49.
BGBI 1993 I, p. 1770.
- 50.
For a critical view on the use of such information for fiscal purposes, see Dieter and Klos 1994, p. 135 ss.
- 51.
Recently, after the initiative taken by the Ministry of Finance to respond to the Panama Papers, the Federal Government has announced that the FIU shall be moved from the BKA to the customs, and should be supported with further personnel in order to improve its effectiveness. See Federal Government 2016.
- 52.
According to Articles 11(1) and 14(1) obliged entities shall report suspicious transactions both to the FIU and to the local police criminal office (Landeskriminalamt).
- 53.
FIU 2014, p. 27.
- 54.
Sotiriadis 2010, p. 174.
References
Aepfelbach R, Fülbier A (1994) Das Geldwäschegetz. Eine einführende Kommentierung. 2. Auflage. Verlag Kommunikationsforum GmbH, Cologne.
Altenhain K (2013) § 261 Geldwäsche; Verschleierung unrechtmäßig erlangter Vermögenswerte. In: Kindhäuser U et al. (eds.) Strafgesetzbuch. Nomos Kommentar (NK) 3 (4). Nomos, Baden-Baden, pp. 483–547.
Arzt G (1997) Das mißglückte Strafgesetz. Am Beispiel der Geldwäschegesetzgebung. In: Diedrichsen U, Dreier R (eds) Das missglückte Gesetz, 8. Symposium der Kommission “Die Funktion des Gesetzes in Geschichte und Gegenwart”. Wandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, pp. 17–38.
Bundesrat (1991) Plenarprotokoll 629. Sitzung 26/04/1991. http://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/downloads/DE/plenarprotokolle/1991/Plenarprotokoll-629.pdf;jsessionid=66D04E3D152F3D9F8CD1AF3C44D78745.2_cid365?__blob=publicationFile&v=2. Last accessed on 16 September 2016.
Bundesrechtsanwaltkammer (2015) Stellungnahme Nr. 33/2015. http://www.brak.de/zur-rechtspolitik/stellungnahmen-pdf/stellungnahmen-deutschland/2015/september/stellungnahme-der-brak-2015-33.pdf. Last accessed on 16 September 2016.
Caesar P (1991) Das Gesetz gegen die Organisierte Kriminalität: Eine unendliche Geschichte? Zeitschrift für Rechtspolitik (ZRP): 241–244.
Dieter C, Klos J (1994) Das Bankgeheimnis. Steuerberater (StB): 135–143.
Federal Government (2016) Financial Intelligence Unit. Mit mehr Personal gegen Geldwäsche. https://www.bundesregierung.de/Content/DE/Artikel/2016/08/2016-08-09-spezialeinheit-geldwaesche.html. Last accessed on 17 August 2016.
FIU (2014) Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) Germany - Annual Report 2013. https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/EN/Publications/AnnualReportsAndSituationAssessments/FIU/fiuJahresbericht2013Englisch.html?nn=39788. Last accessed on 16 September 2016.
Helmers G (2009) Zum Tatbestand der Geldwäsche (§ 261 StGB): Beispiel einer rechtsprinzipiell verfehlten Strafgesetzgebung. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft 121 (3): 509–547.
Müko-Neuheuser S (2012) § 261 Geldwäsche; Verschleierung unrechtmäßig erlangter Vermögenswerte. In: Joecks W (ed.) Münchener Kommentar zum Strafgesetzbuch 4 2. Auflage. C H Beck, Munich.
Nestler C (2010) Geldwäsche; Verschleierung unrechtmäßig erlangter Vermögenswerte. In: Herzog F (ed.) Geldwäschegesetz (Gwg). 1. Auflage. C H Beck, Munich.
Nestler C (2014) Geldwäsche; Verschleierung unrechtmäßig erlangter Vermögenswerte. In: Herzog F (ed.) Geldwäschegesetz (Gwg). 2. Auflage. C H Beck, Munich.
Remmers B (1998) Die Entwicklung der Gesetzgebung zur Geldwäsche. Lang, Frankfurt am Main.
Schmidt W, Krause J (2010) § 261 Geldwäsche, Verschleierung unrechtmäßig erlangter Vermögenswerte. In: Laufhütte H W et al. (eds) Strafgesetzbuch. Leipziger Kommentar 8. 12. Auflage. De Gruyter, Berlin.
Schröder C (2013) Warum die Selbstgeldwäsche straffrei bleiben muss: Why self-money laundering must remain exempt from punishment. Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, Berlin.
Sotiriadis G (2010) Die Entwicklug der Gesetzgebung über Gewinnabschöpfung und Geldwäsche. Unter Berücksichtigung der jeweiligen kriminalpolitischen Tendenzen. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Zoppei, V. (2017). The German Law-Making Process: Tracing Legislative Intents. In: Anti-money Laundering Law: Socio-legal Perspectives on the Effectiveness of German Practices. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 12. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-180-7_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-180-7_4
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-179-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-180-7
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)