Fraud in Austria: Allegation, Proceedings and Defence
Attorney, expert in criminal law & civil law, owner of the IBESICH law firm
Legal Notice/Disclaimer: The following information is intended for general guidance only and does not replace individual legal advice. For advice tailored to your specific situation, please consult a lawyer or another qualified legal professional.
- In Austria, fraud is primarily governed by Section 146 StGB. The required elements are deception, error, disposition of assets, financial damage, intent and intent to obtain unlawful enrichment.
- An unpaid invoice or a failed contract is not automatically fraud. The decisive issue is usually whether intent to deceive and cause damage already existed at the relevant time.
- Aggravated fraud under Section 147 StGB may arise, among other things, where certain means of deception are used or where the damage exceeds EUR 5,000. If the damage exceeds EUR 300,000, the potential penalty range increases significantly.
- Commercial fraud under Section 148 StGB concerns cases in which repeated acts of fraud are planned or committed to generate ongoing income. Here too, the specific evidence is decisive.
- Online fraud, platform fraud, phishing and crypto fraud may, depending on the facts, amount to classic fraud, aggravated fraud, fraudulent misuse of data processing or another offence.
- Fraud allegations may also involve related issues such as money laundering, frozen accounts, seizures, corporate liability or international mutual legal assistance.
- Suspects have rights under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, including the right to information, defence, access to the file and the right to remain silent. No premature substantive statement should be made without knowing the file.
Table of contents
What does fraud mean under Austrian criminal law?
The basic offence of fraud is set out in Section 146 StGB. Put simply, it concerns financial damage caused by deception. The injured person or entity is induced, because of a false impression, to act, tolerate something or omit something in a way that adversely affects their own assets or the assets of a third party.
The central point is this: fraud is not merely “unfair conduct”, but an offence with several elements that must be examined. If one of these elements is missing, the fraud allegation cannot legally stand. That does not automatically mean there are no legal consequences at all. There may be civil claims, restitution claims, damages or other criminal offences. But for fraud, the structure of Section 146 StGB must be fulfilled.
This distinction is particularly important for those affected. Many fraud reports arise from disappointed economic expectations. The prosecution authorities then examine whether the conflict is only to be resolved under civil law or whether there was deception with criminally relevant intent.
Possible breaches of documentation duties, disclosure duties or internal control duties do not replace this criminal law assessment. They may matter for the overall evaluation, but they do not automatically turn a set of facts into fraud.
The basic elements of fraud
| Element | Meaning | Typical question to examine |
|---|---|---|
| Deception about facts | A false picture of present or past circumstances is created or maintained. | Was there objective deception about a fact, or was it only opinion, hope or forecast? |
| Error | The deceived person has a mistaken belief because of the deception. | Did the deception actually influence the decision? |
| Disposition of assets | The deceived person acts, tolerates something or omits something with an effect on assets. | Was money paid, goods delivered, a claim waived, assets released or a claim not asserted? |
| Financial damage | The asset position is economically worse after the disposition. | Has a concrete economic disadvantage occurred? |
| Intent | The offender must at least seriously consider the essential circumstances possible and accept them. | Was the connection causing damage subjectively understood? |
| Intent to enrich | The aim is unlawful enrichment of the offender or a third party. | Was the objective an unlawful financial advantage? |
This table does not replace an assessment of the individual case. But it shows why fraud proceedings often do not depend on only one question. The defence may address deception, error, damage, causation or the subjective elements of the offence.
Deception about facts: What must be misrepresented?
Deception in the sense of fraud relates to facts. Facts are circumstances that can be proven, such as existing ability to pay, ownership of goods, identity, qualification, the existence of damage, authenticity of a document or actual intention at a particular moment.
Not every exaggeration, advertising statement or optimistic assessment is automatically criminal deception. Someone who describes a product as “particularly high-quality” may, depending on the context, be expressing a value judgment. By contrast, someone who claims a certification that does not actually exist, a forged payment confirmation or a completely invented insurance loss is moving closer to the core area of criminal law.
Statements about the future are especially difficult. A mere forecast that later does not come true is not automatically fraud. The position may be different if someone already knows, at the time of making the promise, that they cannot or will not perform, and deceives precisely about that.
Example: Failed performance or deception?
An entrepreneur accepts an order, calculates tightly and later runs into payment difficulties. That alone does not yet establish fraud. The situation may look different if, already when the contract was concluded, it was clear that the performance could not be provided and a false impression of ability or willingness to perform was nevertheless deliberately created.
This is exactly where the dispute lies in many proceedings. Looking back, the report sees only the damage. The criminal law assessment asks about the relevant point in time: what did the accused person know and intend when the other side was induced to pay, deliver or otherwise dispose of assets?
Error and disposition of assets: Why fraud is an offence of self-damage
Fraud typically works through self-damage caused by an error. The deceived person makes a decision they would have made differently without the deception. This can be a payment, the handover of goods, the release of an asset, the conclusion of a contract or even the omission of timely security.
The case law of the Austrian Supreme Court emphasises that fraud requires a connection between deception, error, disposition and damage. It is therefore not enough that someone made objectively false statements and damage occurred at some later point. The damage must result precisely from the disposition of assets caused by the error.
In exchange transactions, it must also be examined whether financial damage has actually occurred. If someone buys something and receives equivalent performance in return, an incorrect side detail does not automatically mean financial damage. If the performance received is economically worthless, substantially inferior or unusable for the agreed purpose, the assessment may be different.
Example: Sale via an online platform
A person sells a used smartphone via an online platform and writes in the listing: “fully functional, no known defects”. The buyer pays the purchase price because of this.
After handover, it turns out that the smartphone has a serious defect. From a criminal law perspective, what now matters is what the seller knew at the time of sale.
If the seller already knew before the sale that the device was defective and nevertheless deliberately described it as functional, there may be deception about a fact. The buyer may then have paid precisely because of this false statement. If the device is worth significantly less or practically unusable because of the defect, financial damage may also exist.
The situation is different if the seller did not know about the defect and reasonably assumed that the device worked. A civil law problem may still arise, such as warranty, rescission or damages. But fraud will usually lack intent because the seller did not deliberately deceive the buyer.
In short: not every defective online sale is fraud. Under criminal law, the decisive questions are above all whether the seller knew the defect, deliberately concealed or misrepresented it and whether the buyer paid precisely because of that.
Financial damage: Not every annoyance is criminal damage
Financial damage is a core element of fraud. It exists where the asset position after the disposition is economically worse than before. The question is not merely formal, such as whether money changed hands. What matters is an overall economic assessment.
Damage may arise, for example, where:
- money is paid without corresponding performance being provided,
- goods are delivered even though payment was not planned from the outset,
- an insurance company pays out based on false information,
- investors invest because of misleading information,
- access data or payment data are used for unauthorised transactions,
- a company pays because invoices or approval processes were manipulated.
Conversely, caution is needed where only a contractual expectation is disappointed. Under criminal law, the financial disadvantage must be concrete and provable. Especially in complex business models, investments or digital assets, calculating damage can be difficult. The nominal loss is not always automatically the criminally relevant damage.
Intent and intent to obtain enrichment
On the subjective side, negligence is not enough for fraud. Someone who manages business poorly, misjudges a situation, miscalculates an order or later becomes unable to pay does not act fraudulently for that reason alone.
Intent is required in relation to the relevant elements of the offence. The accused person must at least seriously consider possible and accept the connection between deception, error, disposition and damage. In addition, there must be intent to enrich themselves or a third party unlawfully.
In practice, intent is rarely proven by an express confession. It is often inferred from external circumstances: communications, payment flows, earlier similar events, internal documents, warnings, economic position, conduct after receipt of payment or handling of complaints.
For the defence, it is therefore crucial not to look only at individual statements. The overall picture matters: which information was available at what time? Which services were actually provided? Were there understandable economic reasons? Were repayments offered? Were there documented misunderstandings? Was a risk communicated openly?
Please note: attempted fraud can also be prosecuted under criminal law.
Fraud or a civil law dispute?
The distinction between fraud and a civil law dispute is one of the most important issues in practice. Many conflicts begin with disappointed expectations: performance is delayed, a project fails, a customer does not pay, goods do not meet expectations, or an investment loses value.
In such cases, civil law primarily asks about contract, warranty, damages, rescission, mistake, delay or enrichment. Criminal law additionally asks whether there was intentional deception with intent to cause damage and obtain enrichment.
Typical situations
| Situation | Not automatically fraud | It becomes more critical under criminal law where … |
|---|---|---|
| Open invoice | Payment is not made because liquidity is lacking or performance is disputed | there was no intention or ability to pay already at the time of ordering and deception occurred about this |
| Failed project | The project fails because of costs, mistakes or delays | non-existent qualifications, resources or approvals were deliberately pretended |
| Investment loss | A risk materialises, the market develops badly | risks, use of funds or economic facts were deliberately misrepresented |
| Insurance loss | The amount of damage is disputed | damage is invented, manipulated or deliberately overstated |
| Online sale | Goods are defective or delivery is delayed | delivery was never intended or identity, goods, payment or shipping were deliberately faked |
This distinction is rarely purely theoretical. It determines whether proceedings can be discontinued, whether a diversionary solution is realistic, whether an indictment is likely or whether civil settlements in parallel may be sensible. Without access to the file, this can hardly be assessed reliably.
Typical situations in fraud allegations
Fraud allegations often reach those affected unexpectedly. Frequently, the first step is a police summons, written notification, an account freeze, a query from the bank or a house search. In corporate cases, the first indication may also come from internal compliance teams, a business partner, an insurance company or a financial institution.
Report for fraud
A report does not mean a conviction. But it usually triggers investigations. The police or public prosecutor try to clarify whether there is an initial suspicion, which persons were involved and which asset movements can be traced.
Suspects should not ignore a report, but they should also not rush to “explain everything”. Especially in fraud cases, a well-intentioned spontaneous account can later become problematic if it is incomplete, documents have not yet been reviewed or legal terms are used incorrectly.
Police summons
A summons as a suspect must be taken seriously. Under Section 49 StPO, suspects have, among other things, the right to be informed about the suspicion and essential rights, to choose a defence lawyer, to access the file and to comment on the allegation or remain silent.
The right to remain silent is not an admission of guilt. It ensures that no one has to make statements without knowing the contents of the file, the evidence and the legal implications. Whether and when a statement is useful depends on the individual case.
House search, seizure and account freeze
In larger fraud allegations, coercive measures may be added. These include searches, seizures of documents or data carriers, analysis of electronic communication, account inquiries, account freezes or asset preservation measures.
For those affected, this is often the most stressful moment of the proceedings. At the same time, important foundations are laid here. Which documents exist, how business processes were documented and whether communications can be fully reconstructed may be decisive for the later defence.
Types of fraud at a glance
Classic fraud
Classic fraud covers cases in which a person is induced by false statements to make a payment, delivery, handover or other disposition of assets. This can occur in private matters as well as in business dealings.
Typical examples include allegedly existing goods, false identities, invented payment confirmations, deception about willingness or ability to pay, or deliberately false statements about ownership, authority or ability to perform.
In the defence, the timing of the deception is often central. Did the accused person act falsely from the beginning, or did the conflict only arise later? Was there a realistic intention to perform? Was the payment difficulty foreseeable? Which communications document the situation at the time?
Business fraud
Business fraud is not an entirely separate basic offence, but describes fraud in an entrepreneurial or commercial setting. The cases are often more complex because several people, companies, payment flows, contracts and accounting records are involved.
Typical issues include sham invoices, contract and performance fraud, sham transactions, false project information, manipulated billing, abusive approvals or deception of business partners, investors or banks.
In business fraud cases, work with the file is especially important. Individual emails are rarely enough to understand the full picture. Contract versions, internal approvals, accounting, proof of delivery, payment plans, business reports, chat histories and role allocations within the company may be decisive.
Fraud within companies
Fraud allegations within companies often involve employees, managing directors, shareholders or external service providers. They may concern manipulated expenses, fictitious suppliers, double billing, unauthorised commissions, hidden kickbacks or redirected payments.
Such proceedings often have both a criminal law side and an employment law or corporate law side. In addition, companies may face the question whether internal controls failed or whether liability under the Austrian Corporate Criminal Liability Act is at issue.
For suspects, it is important to work out their own role precisely. Who decided? Who had access? Who checked? Which processes were customary? Was there an approval practice that was not cleanly documented in writing? Especially in grown companies, not every unclear expense or invoice is automatically fraud.
Insurance fraud
Insurance fraud concerns cases in which insurance companies are to be induced to pay through false or manipulated information. This may involve false claims notifications, staged insured events, inflated claims, manipulated invoices or incorrect information about how an accident happened.
Not every dispute about the amount of damage is criminally relevant. Insurance companies often reduce or dispute claims for civil law reasons. It becomes critical under criminal law where damage is deliberately invented, changed, overstated or placed in a false context.
A typical defence approach lies in differentiation: which statements were objectively false? Were they decisive for the insurance benefit? Did the accused person know they were incorrect? Was this deliberate deception or an unclear, layperson’s or misunderstood damage report?
Capital investment and investment fraud
Capital investment fraud concerns deception in connection with investments, participations, loans, trading models or other investment offers. It often involves high losses and many injured parties.
Typical risk areas are unrealistic return promises, concealed risks, false statements about the use of funds, pretended securities, pyramid schemes or misleading presentation of the economic situation.
Here too, however, an investment loss alone does not prove fraud. Markets can fall, projects can fail, companies can become insolvent. Under criminal law, the decisive issue is whether investors were induced to dispose of assets by false factual assertions and whether the required intent existed.
Online fraud and internet fraud
Online fraud covers a wide range of digital case groups: fake shops, phishing, messenger fraud, platform fraud, romance scams, ticket fraud, payment fraud or identity misuse.
Legally, the technical label is less important than the structure of the offence. If a person is induced to pay by false statements, classic fraud may exist. If, however, data processing systems are manipulated or data are entered, changed, deleted, suppressed or transmitted, Section 148a StGB, fraudulent misuse of data processing, may also be relevant.
Digital proceedings are highly evidence-dependent. IP addresses, wallet addresses, logins, devices, payment routes, bank accounts, chats and platform data must be attributed cleanly. Especially in identity misuse cases, not every trace is automatically reliable evidence against the person whose name or account appears.
Crypto fraud
Crypto fraud concerns assets such as Bitcoin, Ether, stablecoins, tokens or other digital assets. Typical case groups include fake tokens, fraudulent ICOs, rug pulls, manipulated trading platforms, false wallet approvals, phishing or investment fraud involving alleged crypto profits.
The legal classification depends on the facts. Crypto does not automatically turn a case into special criminal law. Often the issues are fraud, fraudulent misuse of data processing, money laundering, breach of trust or other property offences.
Tracing assets is especially relevant. Blockchain transactions are often publicly traceable, but they cannot automatically be attributed to a real person. Exchanges, wallet structures, KYC data, international requests for information and preservation measures can play a significant role.
Aggravated fraud and commercial fraud
Not every fraud allegation carries the same penalty range. The Austrian Criminal Code distinguishes between the basic offence under Section 146 StGB, aggravated fraud under Section 147 StGB and commercial fraud under Section 148 StGB. In addition, Section 148a StGB may be relevant in cases involving digital manipulation.
Overview of important penalty ranges
| Offence / qualification | Typical connecting factor | Penalty range under the StGB, simplified |
|---|---|---|
| Section 146 StGB fraud | basic offence | imprisonment of up to 6 months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates |
| Section 147 para. 1 StGB aggravated fraud | special means of deception, such as false documents, falsified cashless payment instruments, spied-out payment data or false evidence | imprisonment of up to 3 years |
| Section 147 para. 2 StGB aggravated fraud | damage exceeding EUR 5,000 | imprisonment of up to 3 years |
| Section 147 para. 3 StGB aggravated fraud | damage exceeding EUR 300,000 | imprisonment from 1 to up to 10 years |
| Section 148 StGB commercial fraud | repeated commission to generate ongoing income | depending on the form, up to 3 years or 6 months to 5 years |
| Section 148a StGB fraudulent misuse of data processing | manipulation of automated data processing with financial damage and intent to enrich | basic case up to 6 months or a fine; qualified cases up to 3 years or 1 to 10 years |
The table is an overview. The exact potential penalty can depend on several factors, such as the amount of damage, means used, commercial nature, concurrence of several offences, prior convictions, compensation for damage, confession, course of proceedings and role of the persons involved.
Aggravated fraud
Aggravated fraud under Section 147 StGB may arise, among other things, where certain means of deception are used or the damage exceeds certain thresholds. In practice, the threshold of more than EUR 5,000 and the threshold of more than EUR 300,000 are particularly important.
Special means such as false or falsified documents, false or falsified cashless payment instruments, spied-out data of a cashless payment instrument, false or falsified data, other evidence or an incorrect measuring device may also establish a qualification.
For the defence, the question is therefore not only whether fraud exists at all. It is equally important whether the alleged qualification is actually fulfilled. Proceedings can change considerably if, for example, the amount of damage, attribution of individual payments or use of a particular means of deception is doubtful.
Commercial fraud
In simplified terms, commerciality means that someone acts with the intention of obtaining a more than merely minor ongoing income over a longer period by repeated commission. In fraud proceedings, this allegation is often raised where several similar acts, a large number of injured parties or a recurring business model are alleged.
Here too, assessment of the individual case is central. Several incidents alone do not automatically prove commercial fraud. The corresponding intention must be provable. Relevant factors include planning, repetition, income structure, organisational approach, communication, allocation of roles and economic motivation.
Fraud with related economic allegations
Fraud proceedings rarely remain limited to Section 146 StGB where large amounts, companies, banks, insurance companies or international payment flows are involved. Additional criminal law and asset-related questions may then arise.
Fraud and money laundering
Money laundering under Section 165 StGB may become relevant where assets originate from criminal activity and their illegal origin is to be concealed or disguised. In fraud cases, this may play a role where funds are forwarded, converted, distributed across different accounts, exchanged into cryptocurrencies or moved through third parties.
Not every onward transfer of money is money laundering. Origin, knowledge or intent, purpose of the transaction and specific acts of concealment are decisive. In practice, banks, money laundering reporting offices and international payment service providers can play an important role because suspicious transactions may lead to freezes or reports.
Seizure, account freeze and asset preservation
In fraud allegations involving relevant assets, the issue is often not only a later penalty. Authorities may already preserve assets during the investigation. This can affect accounts, cash, vehicles, real estate, crypto wallets, company documents or electronic devices.
For those affected, an account freeze can be existential, especially where ongoing business payments, salaries or private fixed costs are affected. The defence must then examine the legal basis of the measure, which amount is to be secured, whether the measure is proportionate and which remedies or applications are sensible.
Corporate responsibility and internal investigations
If fraud allegations arise within a company, the organisation itself may be affected in addition to the individual responsibility of particular persons. In Austria, liability of associations may come into consideration under certain conditions.
For companies, it is then relevant whether internal controls existed, who had decision-making authority, whether warnings were ignored and how the company reacted after becoming aware of the matter. Internal investigations can help clarify facts. But they must be planned carefully so that evidence is secured, employee rights are respected and defence interests are not damaged.
International elements in fraud cases
International elements become important in fraud allegations especially where persons, payments, assets or digital traces are distributed across several states.
This may be the case where:
- suspects live abroad,
- injured parties are located in Austria but payments flow abroad,
- accounts, wallets or companies in several states are involved,
- platforms, payment service providers or exchanges are located outside Austria,
- foreign authorities transmit information to Austria,
- European or international search, arrest or mutual legal assistance measures are threatened.
In 2025, the Austrian Supreme Court emphasised, in relation to domestic jurisdiction in fraud cases with a foreign element, that a connecting factor in Austria may arise not only from the final damage. An intermediate result required by the offence, such as an error-induced disposition of assets in Austria, may also be relevant.
In practice, this means: a fraud case is not automatically “not Austrian” merely because money was transferred abroad or offenders are suspected to be abroad. Conversely, not every remote Austrian connection automatically establishes Austrian criminal proceedings. Jurisdiction, mutual legal assistance and enforcement must be examined specifically.
Defence approaches in a fraud allegation
The defence in fraud cases does not begin with a blanket claim that everything was only a misunderstanding. It begins with access to the file, factual analysis and examination of each element of the offence.
1. No deception about facts
One approach may be that there was no criminally relevant deception about facts. Perhaps the issue was a forecast, an assessment, a legal evaluation, an unclear contractual interpretation or a later development.
This is especially important in business models, investments and project contracts. Not every optimistic presentation is fraud. It becomes relevant under criminal law where concrete facts were deliberately misrepresented or decisive facts were unlawfully concealed.
2. No causal error
Even if a statement was false, it must have caused the disposition of assets. If the other side would have decided independently of it, causation may be absent or doubtful.
In proceedings involving professional market participants, due diligence reviews or extensive contractual documents, this question can be complex. What did the other side know? Which information was decisive? Were risks expressly assumed?
3. No financial damage
Another defence approach concerns damage. Was equivalent performance provided? Has the amount of damage been calculated incorrectly? Were returns, securities or counter-performance taken into account? Can individual payments even be attributed to the accused person?
Especially in capital investment, crypto asset, platform business and corporate cases, calculating damage is often not a simple arithmetic step. It may require expert opinions, accounting, transaction analyses and legal assessment.
4. Lack of intent
Many proceedings turn on the subjective element of the offence. If it can be shown that the accused person intended to perform, believed their statements were correct or that economic difficulties only arose later, fraudulent intent may be missing.
But this must be documented carefully. Internal records, attempts to deliver, payment plans, investor communication, repayment offers, external advice, accounting data or technical evidence may be helpful.
5. Civil law conflict instead of criminal proceedings
Some fraud allegations are in reality pressure tools in an economic conflict. A criminal complaint may then run in parallel with civil claims. That does not mean the complaint is automatically unfounded. But it does mean that the defence must understand the civil law starting point precisely.
Relevant issues include contractual content, performance status, defects, rescission, warranty, damages, set-off, settlement talks and payment arrangements. A good criminal defence does not ignore these civil law foundations.
A legal assessment can help clarify the allegation, the evidence and possible defence strategies at an early stage.
What should you do if accused of fraud?
When facing a fraud allegation, calm and structured action is more important than quick self-defence.
| What to do | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Take summonses, reports and official letters seriously | Deadlines, procedural status and rights depend on the specific document. |
| Before making a statement, consider access to the file and legal advice | Without knowing the file, it is hard to assess which evidence and allegations actually exist. |
| Secure documents | Contracts, invoices, chat histories, emails, payment records and delivery documents can be exculpatory. |
| Prepare a chronology | In fraud cases, the timing of knowledge, intention, payment and performance is often decisive. |
| Do not delete or alter communications | Manipulations can create new problems and damage credibility. |
| React quickly to account freezes or seizures | Asset preservation measures can have serious economic effects and must be legally reviewed. |
| What to avoid | Risk |
|---|---|
| Spontaneous comprehensive statement without knowing the file | Incomplete or misleading statements are difficult to correct later. |
| Contact with injured parties in pressure situations | This may be understood as influence, an admission of guilt or further escalation. |
| Subsequent “cleaning up” of documents | Changes can strengthen suspicion and trigger further allegations. |
| Blanket blame placed on employees or business partners | Without evidence, this can be strategically harmful. |
| Treating criminal law as only a side issue | Fraud allegations can have professional, economic and personal consequences. |
The first steps after a fraud allegation can be important for the further course of the case. Legal advice helps assess the situation and respond carefully.
Frequently Asked Questions About Fraud in Austria
Is an unpaid invoice already fraud?
No, an unpaid invoice is not automatically fraud. It becomes relevant under criminal law mainly where, already at the time of ordering or concluding the contract, there was deception about ability or willingness to pay and financial damage was caused as a result.
If inability to pay only arises later or if the service is disputed, the matter may be a civil law conflict. The line depends heavily on the individual case.
What penalty can fraud carry in Austria?
The basic offence under Section 146 StGB provides for imprisonment of up to six months or a fine of up to 360 daily rates. Aggravated fraud, commercial fraud or very high losses can carry significantly higher penalty ranges.
The concrete consequence depends on many circumstances, including the amount of damage, contribution to the offence, prior convictions, compensation for damage, confession, evidence and the course of the proceedings.
When is fraud aggravated?
Aggravated fraud under Section 147 StGB may exist, among other things, where certain means of deception are used or the damage exceeds EUR 5,000. If the damage exceeds EUR 300,000, the law provides for a particularly increased penalty range.
Whether the qualification is actually fulfilled must be examined carefully. The amount of damage and the attribution of individual acts are often disputed.
What does commercial fraud mean?
Commercial fraud concerns cases in which acts of fraud are intended to be committed repeatedly in order to generate ongoing income. The allegation is often raised in series cases, online models or repeated business transactions.
Several incidents alone are not always enough. The relevant intention must be provable.
Is online fraud assessed differently from classic fraud?
Online fraud often follows the same basic principles as classic fraud: deception, error, disposition, damage and intent. Depending on the technical setup, fraudulent misuse of data processing under Section 148a StGB may additionally or instead be relevant.
The evidential questions are often more technical: who used which account, device, wallet, profile or login? Which data were changed or used? Which transaction can be attributed to which person?
What should I do in a crypto fraud case?
In crypto fraud cases, transactions, wallet addresses, platform data, chat histories and payment records should be secured as quickly as possible. Whether a criminal complaint, civil steps, preservation measures or international requests for information are sensible depends on the specific case.
If you are accused yourself, it must also be examined whether the attribution of wallets, accounts and payment flows is reliable.
Do I have to make a statement to the police?
Under the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure, suspects have the right to comment on the allegation or to remain silent. Whether a statement is useful should only be decided after reviewing the file and the evidence.
The right to remain silent is a procedural right and not an admission of guilt.
Can fraud proceedings be discontinued?
Yes, discontinuance may be possible if the suspicion is insufficient, elements of the offence are missing, the evidence is not strong enough or other legal reasons apply. Whether that is realistic cannot be answered in general terms.
In some cases, diversionary solutions or compensation for damage may also play a role. This depends on the seriousness, prior record, damage, evidence and stage of the proceedings.
Sources
- Austrian Criminal Code, RIS, current version as of 28 April 2026: RIS Austrian Criminal Code, current version
- Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure 1975, RIS, current version as of 28 April 2026: RIS Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure 1975, current version
- RIS Section 147 StGB, aggravated fraud: RIS Section 147 StGB, aggravated fraud
- RIS Section 148a StGB, fraudulent misuse of data processing: RIS Section 148a StGB, fraudulent misuse of data processing
- RIS case law / Austrian Supreme Court on financial damage in exchange transactions: RIS case law / Austrian Supreme Court on financial damage in exchange transactions
- Austrian Supreme Court on domestic jurisdiction in fraud cases with a foreign element: Austrian Supreme Court on domestic jurisdiction in fraud cases with a foreign element
Find more reviews on our Google Business Profile
Get in Touch
You can reach us by phone, email, or via our contact form.
IBESICH
Josefstädter Straße 11/1/16
1080 Wien
MO-FR: 9 am to 6 pm
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google Maps. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More InformationNews from the firm and legal updates in Austria.
