Benefit Fraud in Germany: Section 263 StGB and Grundsicherungsgeld

Since 1 July 2026 the benefit is no longer called Bürgergeld. Section 19 SGB II now speaks of Grundsicherungsgeld, and that is not cosmetic. The same reform abolished the grace period for protected assets, tightened the duties to cooperate, and added Section 64a SGB II, which expressly assigns the Federal Employment Agency the task of combating organised benefit abuse. Anyone receiving a summons or a written questionnaire over a fraud allegation today is dealing with an administration that matches more data than it did two years ago.

The allegations themselves are usually mundane. A side job that was not reported. A partner who moved in. An inheritance, a temporary contract, a severance payment. The amount is often in the low thousands. In criminal law terms it is still fraud under Section 263 StGB, with up to five years of imprisonment in the basic range.

How the Jobcenter finds out

In most cases not through a report, but through Section 52 SGB II. The provision obliges the Federal Employment Agency and the municipal bodies to run an automated comparison on everyone receiving benefits on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July and 1 October: against pension and accident insurance records, against periods of minor employment, against exemption orders reported to the Federal Central Tax Office under Sections 45d and 45e of the Income Tax Act, and against benefits from other bodies. The data transmitted for the comparison are surname and first name, date and place of birth, address, and insurance number. The comparison under subsection 1 no. 2, against periods of employment, may now even be run monthly.

The scale can be quantified. The Federal Employment Agency reports around 1.8 million overlap notifications for 2025. Of those, 79,577 cases led to established overpayments of about 61.8 million euros. That is the funnel the criminal cases come out of. Not every overlap is fraud, but every overlap triggers a review.

Section 64a SGB II was added in July 2026. The provision is short and frequently misrepresented. It gives the Agency no power to stop benefits or to assess recovery claims; subsection 2 expressly leaves the competence of the Jobcenters untouched. What it does give is a mandate for preventive, analytical and coordinating measures, meaning pattern recognition across regions. Where indications of unlawfully granted benefits emerge, the competent bodies must be informed. In practice this means irregularities are now more likely to be noticed across administrative boundaries.

The core of the allegation: deception by silence

In benefit fraud cases the deception rarely lies in an active false statement. Usually the suspect is accused of failing to report a change. The legal hook is Section 60(1) no. 2 SGB I: anyone applying for or receiving social benefits must report changes in circumstances relevant to the benefit without delay.

From that duty the prosecution constructs fraud by omission under Sections 263(1) and 13 StGB. It works, but not automatically. It requires that the change was in fact relevant to the benefit, that the suspect knew of it, that he knew of the duty to report or deliberately closed his eyes to it, and that the authority was actually labouring under a mistaken belief. That last point is often underestimated. Where the Jobcenter already had the information from another source, because the employer had registered the employment, there is no mistaken belief. At most an attempt remains.

A second point concerns the amount of loss. The loss is not the sum of the payments made, but the difference from what would have been due had the correct information been given. Someone earning 800 euros gross on the side does not lose 800 euros of entitlement; the allowances and deductions under Section 11b SGB II remain. The file, however, often states the gross figure. Recalculating is tedious and almost always worthwhile, because it reduces the loss and thereby opens up the options for discontinuation.

Two sets of proceedings running in parallel

Alongside the criminal case runs the social law case. The Jobcenter withdraws the award under Section 45 SGB X or revokes it under Section 48 SGB X and demands repayment under Section 50 SGB X. The two sets of proceedings apply different standards, which is both an opportunity and a risk.

The risk: whatever is written by way of reasoning in the social proceedings ends up in the criminal file. A detailed objection setting out personal circumstances is a partial confession if one is not careful. The opportunity: a repayment agreement with the Jobcenter is a strong argument in the criminal case. It evidences compensation under Section 46(2) StGB and makes a discontinuation under Section 153a StPO realistic.

We therefore coordinate both from one hand as a matter of principle. The sequence decides the outcome.

When it goes beyond a fine

Three constellations lift the case out of the routine. First, loss on a large scale under Section 263(3) sentence 2 no. 2 StGB; the Federal Court of Justice draws the line at 50,000 euros. The range is then six months to ten years. Second, acting on a commercial basis, which is quickly alleged where benefits were drawn continuously over years and which also leads into the aggravated case. Third, several people acting together, for instance with sham employment or sham addresses, because that can become a gang under no. 1. These are precisely the cases the legislature had in mind with Section 64a SGB II.

Below that threshold: the limitation period is five years (Section 78(3) no. 4 StGB), running from the last act. Where the award periods go back further, the limitation argument is the first thing we examine.

Civil servants, soldiers and regulated professions

A fine of 90 daily units is unpleasant for an employee. For a civil servant it is a disciplinary matter, as it is for a soldier, and in property offences it can call into question the reliability required under firearms or trade law. For non-German nationals the size of the sentence matters under residence law. In those cases the aim of the defence is not a lower sentence but staying below the threshold for an entry.

What counts in the first days

Do not complete the questionnaire. Make no statement to the Jobcenter before the criminal file is available. Do not attend a police interview; there is no obligation to do so. And assemble everything documenting the income position in the period concerned: payslips, bank statements, employment contracts, tenancy agreements. The more complete those documents are, the more readily the loss figure can be corrected.

We apply for access to the file, recalculate the alleged loss, examine mistaken belief, intent and limitation, and conduct the negotiations with the prosecution and the Jobcenter. You can reach us on +49 228 504 463 36.

Where the letter comes from the Main Customs Office, a separate procedural track applies under Sections 14a and 14b SchwarzArbG. We describe it on our page on the hearing form from the Main Customs Office, and the benefit itself under Bürgergeld and Grundsicherungsgeld.

This article gives a general overview and does not replace advice on an individual case.

Written by attorney Philip Bafteh, criminal defense attorney in Bonn. Philip Bafteh publishes regularly on criminal and commercial law and defends accused persons in investigative and trial proceedings.

More about the attorney →

Last updated: November 2026