In brief

What comes from an offence should not remain with the offender. Confiscation is imposed in addition to the sentence and is not a penalty in the narrow sense. In fraud and benefit fraud cases it is often the larger financial item.

Since the reform of asset recovery on 1 July 2017 the instrument is called Einziehung. Under Section 73(1) StGB the court orders confiscation of whatever the offender obtained through or for the offence. If it no longer exists, an equivalent sum of money is confiscated instead (Section 73c StGB).

The calculation follows the gross principle, softened by Section 73d StGB: expenses are generally deducted, but not what was spent on committing or preparing the offence. Someone who buys drugs for 5,000 euros and sells them for 8,000 must expect 8,000, because the purchase was part of the offence.

Third parties who received the proceeds are covered as well, for example a limited company or a family member (Section 73b StGB). Under Section 76a StGB confiscation is possible even when nobody is convicted, and independent as well as extended confiscation become time-barred only after 30 years (Section 76b StGB).

Where it hurts in practice

In benefit fraud cases, confiscation runs alongside the job centre’s own repayment claim under Section 50 SGB X. Repaying the benefits authority extinguishes the victim’s claim, and to that extent confiscation is excluded (Section 73e(1) StGB). An early instalment agreement with the job centre can therefore avoid a double burden and at the same time improves sentencing.

Future confiscation is secured by an asset freezing order under Section 111e StPO. It can lead to accounts being attached during the investigation, often without warning. In detail: asset freezing and blocked accounts.

Where the defence comes in

The amount obtained is regularly disputed. Estimated turnover, amounts counted twice, payments that never reached the client: there is often more money at stake here than in the argument about the sentence. If the sum is no longer part of the person’s assets at the time of enforcement, the court may order that enforcement be dropped to the extent it would be disproportionate (Section 459g(5) StPO).

General explanation, not advice on an individual case. As of November 2026.