The Austrian Criminal Code also penalizes the intentional, subsequent utilization of items obtained through a criminal offense. While offenses such as theft, fraud, or embezzlement focus on the unlawful acquisition or the act causing harm itself, the offense of receiving stolen goods under Section 164 of the Criminal Code addresses specific scenarios in which an item originating from a property crime is subsequently concealed or utilized. The focus here is not on the initial taking of the item, but rather on maintaining and consolidating the unlawful state of affairs following the predicate offense.
Note: Handling stolen goods is a typical derivative offense. It presupposes a prior offense against another person’s property—punishable by law—that has already been committed by someone else. As a general rule, a person who participated in that prior offense cannot be held liable as a handler of stolen goods regarding the same item. Conversely, however, the handler need not personally know the specific perpetrator of the prior offense.
Forms of committing the offense of receiving stolen goods under Section 164 of the German Criminal Code (StGB)
Section 164 of the Criminal Code (StGB) covers several forms of commission. Under Section 164(1) StGB, it is a criminal offense to assist the perpetrator of a punishable act against another person’s property—after the act has been committed—in concealing or disposing of an item obtained through that act. Under Section 164(2) StGB, it is likewise a criminal offense to purchase such an item, otherwise acquire possession of it, or procure it for a third party. The penalty range for the basic offense is a term of imprisonment not exceeding six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates.
If the value of the concealed item exceeds 5,000 euros, the penalty increases—pursuant to Section 164(3) of the Criminal Code (StGB)—to a term of imprisonment of up to two years. In cases where the value exceeds 300,000 euros or the offense of receiving stolen goods is committed on a commercial basis, Section 164(4) StGB stipulates a penalty range of six months to five years of imprisonment. The same applies if the predicate offense—even if not committed on a commercial basis—carries a penalty of at least five years’ imprisonment and the offender is aware of the circumstances constituting that offense.
Furthermore, the law provides for a privileged form of receiving stolen goods involving items of low value, where the act was committed out of necessity, rashness, or to satisfy a craving. For this privileged form of receiving stolen goods under Section 164(5) of the Criminal Code, Section 164(6) requires authorization for prosecution by the person injured by the predicate offense. Moreover, pursuant to Section 164(7), a person who commits this privileged form of receiving stolen goods to the detriment of certain relatives is not subject to punishment.
Exclusion of preferential treatment in cases of serious predicate offenses
However, this privileged status is excluded in cases involving certain serious predicate offenses—such as burglary of a dwelling and/or possession of a weapon, theft accompanied by violence, robbery, or extortion. It is of considerable significance that Section 164 of the Criminal Code (StGB) requires neither an intent to gain enrichment nor actual knowledge. Consequently, the offense of receiving stolen goods does not presuppose that the accused made a profit from the item or even sought to obtain a financial advantage, nor does it require that they were actually aware that the item originated from a relevant predicate offense.
The mere act of concealing, taking possession of, or procuring the item for a third party is sufficient if the accused considers it even possible that the item originated from a relevant predicate offense and accepts this possibility when taking possession, procuring, or assisting in the concealment or utilization of the item.
Receiving stolen goods for the benefit of another (Paragraph 1): Assisting in concealment or disposal.
“Supported” the perpetrator …anyone who assists him in a way that enables, facilitates, secures, or otherwise promotes the concealment or utilization [of the goods]. Any form of conduct may constitute such assistance. Mere acquiescence, however, does not amount to support. A wife who knows that her husband is storing stolen items in their home but merely tolerates their presence there does not commit the offense of receiving stolen goods.
Conversely, expressly permitting the storage of items obtained through a prior offense can give rise to criminal liability. According to case law, “concealing” refers to conduct that hinders or prevents the rightful owner from recovering the item—for instance, by keeping it in storage or moving it to another location. Therefore, the offense of receiving stolen goods can be committed even if a person does not sell the stolen property themselves but merely hides or stores it on behalf of the original offender.
“Utilizing” means deriving an economic benefit from the item obtained through the predicate offense.
Self-interested handling of stolen goods (Para. 2): acquiring possession, purchasing, and procuring
According to case law, “appropriation” constitutes the acquisition of (sole or joint) custody of an item. Neither the acquisition of ownership nor a permanent transfer of possession is required for this; even temporary custody or custody obtained without payment can suffice. Precisely for this reason, the offense of handling stolen goods (*Hehlerei*) arises in practice not only upon the purchase of an item but also when taking temporary possession of or storing it.
However, the perpetrator’s actions must be aimed at obtaining custody in the sense of having the power of disposal. A “purchase” is merely a particularly prominent form of taking possession. Anyone who pays for the item in question but has not yet taken delivery of it has not yet taken possession of it—though it should be noted that a criminal attempt (Section 15 of the German Criminal Code) may also be considered.
“Procuring” generally refers to intermediaries who never themselves acquired power of disposal but who bring together the original offender and the recipient. The person procuring the goods never held power of disposal themselves but facilitates the transfer of custody between the original offender and the recipient.
Distinction from theft and participation in the predicate offense
Distinguishing the offense from theft is particularly important in practice. In the case of theft, the perpetrator acquires the item personally by taking it. In the case of receiving stolen goods, the item has already been obtained through a prior property crime. The receiver of stolen goods only becomes active after that predicate offense has been completed. Consequently, a person who commits theft cannot additionally “receive” the stolen goods as a receiver.
Equally significant is the distinction regarding participation in the predicate offense. If the subsequent support is agreed upon prior to the predicate offense, the situation generally constitutes participation in the original offense rather than receiving stolen goods.
According to case law, the offense of receiving stolen goods typically only comes into consideration when a third party provides assistance after the substantive completion of the predicate offense, without having previously been involved as a participant.
When does handling stolen goods occur – and when not?
Example 1:
Person A purchases and takes possession of a high-quality bicycle from Person B, because B is offering the bicycle—in a manner apparent to A—at a price far below the usual market value. A knows that B regularly steals bicycles. At the time of purchase, A considers it possible that the bicycle is stolen and accepts this fact. If B has indeed stolen the bicycle, A is criminally liable for receiving stolen goods.
Beispiel 2:
Person A keeps stolen jewelry for an acquaintance, B, in their apartment so that the stolen goods cannot be found during a search of B’s apartment. Even if Person A does not sell the items or personally profit from them, this can constitute the offense of handling stolen goods, as the mere act of concealing the item fulfills the elements of the offense.
Example 3:
Person B directs the initial offender A—who intends to resell a stolen mobile phone—to a fence, C, whom B knows. This action alone can constitute the offense of handling stolen goods on B’s part, because Section 164 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) covers not only the purchase of the item but also assistance in its disposal and the act of procuring the item (derived from the initial offense) for third parties.
Example 4:
A steals a laptop and later resells it himself. Many people would colloquially describe A’s sale as “handling stolen goods.” Legally, however, A has not committed the offense of handling stolen goods in relation to his own prior offense, because A is the perpetrator of the original crime.
Example 5:
Even before a planned burglary to be committed by A, A expressly agrees with B that B will store and resell the stolen goods after the crime. B’s express willingness to assist A reinforces A’s resolve to commit the burglary. Even though B’s physical assistance occurs only later, B is liable not for receiving stolen goods but for participation in the predicate offense, because B reinforced A’s criminal plan by promising assistance prior to the crime.
Example 6:
A purchases a used mobile phone via an online platform at a price significantly below the market rate. A acquires the mobile phone in good faith (see also § 367 ABGB). Not every unusually cheap purchase automatically constitutes the offense of handling stolen goods. From a criminal law perspective, the decisive factor is whether the illicit origin of the item was recognized—or at least seriously considered a possibility and accepted. Mere negligence is insufficient to establish criminal liability for handling stolen goods.
Handling Stolen Goods: Insights from Defense Practice
In cases involving allegations under Section 164 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), a precise reconstruction of the sequence of events is typically crucial. It is particularly important to establish the predicate offense from which the item allegedly originated, when that offense was concluded, whether there was any prior involvement, and the specific manner in which the item was allegedly acquired, concealed, passed on, or utilized. This classification often determines whether the conduct constitutes receiving stolen goods, participation in the predicate offense, or no criminal offense at all.
The subjective element of the offense is, of course, also essential. Not every contact with an item obtained through a criminal act automatically fulfills the elements of the offense. What matters is the knowledge possessed regarding the item’s origin, the circumstances perceived, and the specific nature of the acquisition or acceptance.
A receiver of stolen goods need not know the identity of the original offender or all the details of the predicate offense. It is sufficient to satisfy the subjective element of the offense (the requisite intent) if the accused considered it possible that the item in question originated from a relevant predicate offense.
Legally damaging statements
When facing allegations of receiving stolen goods, the accused often use phrasing that can be legally incriminating. Statements such as having “suspected the item might not be legitimate, but not known for certain,” having “merely held onto the item briefly without intending to keep it,” or having “made no profit from it” are generally insufficient to dispel the suspicion of wrongdoing.
On the contrary: temporary custody can suffice, and an intent to enrich oneself is precisely not required for Section 164 of the Criminal Code (StGB).
Practical tip regarding an allegation of receiving stolen goods
Anyone facing an allegation of receiving stolen goods should under no circumstances attempt to downplay the matter with spontaneous explanations. Factors such as “mere possession,” the short-term acceptance of an item, or the claim that no profit was made from the transaction are generally insufficient to legally refute the charge. Therefore, before making a statement to the police or other investigative authorities, one should always consult a lawyer specializing in this area of law; such a lawyer will assess the evidence and devise a tailored defense strategy based on a thorough understanding of the case files.
Contact usSummary
Section 164 of the Criminal Code (StGB): The offense of receiving stolen goods covers various forms of subsequent dealing with an item derived from a criminal act directed against another person’s property. Specific modes of commission include assisting in concealing or realizing the value of the item, as well as purchasing, taking possession of, or procuring it for a third party.
Penalty range: The basic offense carries a penalty of up to six months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to 360 daily rates. Where the value exceeds €5,000, the penalty increases—pursuant to Section 164(3) of the Criminal Code (StGB)—to imprisonment for up to two years; where the value exceeds €300,000 or the offense involves receiving stolen goods on a commercial basis, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of six months to five years.
Key distinguishing criterion: Handling stolen goods presupposes a completed predicate offense committed by another person against the property of a third party. As a general rule, a person who participated in the predicate offense cannot be a handler of the stolen goods in relation to the same item.
No intent to gain an advantage required: For the offense of receiving stolen goods, it is not necessary for the perpetrator to obtain or even aim for a financial advantage. Mere concealment or taking temporary possession—without the intent to secure an economic benefit—can suffice for criminal liability under Section 164 of the German Criminal Code (StGB).
Significance for the defense: Whether the specific case actually involves handling stolen goods, participation in the predicate offense, or no criminal conduct at all often depends on specific details regarding the sequence of events, the handling of the item, and information concerning its origin.
Allegations of receiving stolen goods are often underestimated because the individuals involved do not view themselves as the perpetrators of the original property crime. Yet, this is precisely what makes the offense unique. Even the subsequent handling of an item unlawfully obtained through a prior offense can carry criminal liability, provided the requisite intent is present. Whether the elements of Section 164 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) are actually met in a specific instance, what penalties might apply, and which defense strategy is appropriate can only be reliably assessed based on the specific facts of the individual case.
Early legal advice from our experts regarding criminal law matters can therefore play a decisive role in avoiding unnecessary or serious legal disadvantages.
FAQ: Häufig gestellte Fragen zur Hehlerei in Österreich
If, for example, an offender A has stolen a smartphone and tasks an acquaintance, B, with selling it via B’s profile on an online marketplace, B becomes liable for handling stolen goods as soon as he considers it possible that A unlawfully appropriated the smartphone yet proceeds to offer it for sale online. In the same scenario, B’s act of taking possession of and concealing the smartphone would also fall under this offense, because B’s conduct promotes or perpetuates the unlawful state of affairs.
On the one hand, the criminalization of receiving stolen goods is intended to deter the securing of unlawfully obtained proceeds; the unlawful state of affairs should not be perpetuated. On the other hand, the legislation also aims to curb the market for goods obtained through criminal acts, thereby removing the incentive for offenders to commit property crimes by leaving them with no means to realize the value of such goods.
Acquisition is a criminal offense if, at the time of purchase, the buyer considers it at least seriously possible that the item is of illicit origin. If an item is acquired in good faith—or, more precisely, without considering it possible that the item might stem from a criminal offense against another party’s property—the intent required for criminal liability is absent. Of course, whether or not the requisite intent (acting in bad faith) can be proven against a suspect accused of receiving stolen goods depends on the specific circumstances of the individual case and the assessment of the evidence.
As a general rule, the public prosecutor’s office brings charges when—in its view—there is a high probability of conviction. Specifically in cases of receiving stolen goods, the prosecution should base its charges on findings from the investigation that indicate the commission of a predicate offense by another party, the defendant’s conduct falling under the definition of receiving stolen goods, and the defendant’s (at least conditional) intent.
The defense counsel examines the evidence, particularly regarding whether the elements of the offense of receiving stolen goods—which the prosecution is required to prove—can actually be substantiated. A strategy is developed in consultation with the client to refute the prosecution’s arguments (interpreting matters in the defendant’s favor in cases of doubt). If even a single element of the offense is successfully challenged, the case must be dismissed or result in an acquittal.
Of course, it always depends on the specific case; however, relevant factors will generally include how the initial business contact was established and how the purchase transaction was conducted or structured. For instance, a gross disparity between the value of the item and the purchase price could suggest an intent to commit the offense of receiving stolen goods. Conversely, if the item was acquired under “standard” or “ordinary” circumstances, it becomes more difficult to prove the intent on the part of the purchaser required for criminal liability.
There are numerous differences. A key distinction is that receiving stolen goods relates to tangible items, whereas money laundering targets the virtually boundless umbrella category of “assets” (including, for instance, cryptocurrencies). Predicate offenses for money laundering are not limited to crimes against the property of others but encompass a far wider range of offenses (such as violations of narcotics laws). Furthermore, self-laundering can also be a criminal offense. Generally, money laundering carries significantly harsher prison sentences.
