This broad understanding follows the so-called unity theory: both the place of action and the place of result establish domestic jurisdiction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Place of action and place of result \u2013 what is the difference?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n\n- Place of action: the place where the act or omission constituting the offence is carried out. Example: the offender sends fraudulent emails from Vienna.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Place of result: the place where the result constituting the offence occurs. Example: the victim in Salzburg suffers the financial loss.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
If either of these places is in Austria, domestic jurisdiction exists. Both places do not have to be in Austria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is an intermediate result and why is it decisive?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A key element of Austrian case law is the intermediate result. According to the case law of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), it is sufficient for the jurisdiction of the Austrian criminal courts if merely an intermediate result has occurred in Austria, or should have occurred here according to the offender’s intention: this alone establishes a place of the offence in Austria within the meaning of \u00a7 67(2) StGB, so that Austrian criminal laws apply under \u00a7 62 StGB \u2013 even if the offender acted abroad and the final loss only occurs abroad (RIS-Justiz RS0092073).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An intermediate result is an effect that has actually occurred but does not yet constitute the full result required by the offence (OGH 13\u202fOs\u202f32\/25t). An intermediate result is thus a kind of \u201cintermediate stage\u201d on the way to the actual loss. This broad understanding is of great importance for the prosecution of cross-border offences \u2013 especially online fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How is domestic jurisdiction determined in cases of fraud?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Fraud under \u00a7 146 StGB requires that a person, by deceiving another about facts, induces that person to make a disposition of assets that causes financial loss to that person or a third party. Determining the place of the offence is particularly complex in fraud cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the OGH decision 13\u202fOs\u202f32\/25t, the place of the offence in fraud cases also includes the place where the victim disposes of their assets (intermediate result). If the victim acts in Austria \u2013 for example by making a bank transfer from Austria \u2013 the place of the offence is in Austria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, according to RIS-Justiz RS0092066, the place of the offence in fraud cases under \u00a7\u202f67(2) StGB also includes the place where an actual loss of assets occurs (occurrence of the financial loss, place of result) that a third party suffers as a specific consequence of the offence. This considerably broadens the concept of the place of the offence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What are some practical examples?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The following examples illustrate how Austrian jurisdiction is established in practice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Deception from within Austria (place of action in Austria)<\/strong>: An offender sends fraudulent emails from Vienna to victims in Germany, and the loss occurs exclusively there. For Austrian jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the offender acted in Austria. The nationality of the victim and the place where the loss occurs are irrelevant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Crypto fraud via a foreign platform (intermediate result in Austria)<\/strong>: An investor from Vienna is persuaded via social media to transfer around EUR 63,000 to his own account<\/strong> on a crypto platform in Malta and to invest from there in supposed crypto investments. In fraud cases, the victim’s disposition of assets induced by deception already constitutes an intermediate result. If the victim makes these dispositions from Austria, the place of the offence is also here, and the Austrian courts may have jurisdiction. This applies even if the platform and the account are abroad and the loss only finally occurs there.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Credit card fraud abroad (loss suffered by an Austrian bank)<\/strong>: An offender uses an Austrian credit card abroad and deceives a merchant there. However, the loss is borne not by the deceived merchant but by the Austrian bank that issued the card and guarantees the payment. Because the loss occurs in Austria, the Austrian courts have jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
When can Austrian courts also have jurisdiction over offences committed abroad?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
As a general rule: if there is no place of the offence in Austria, the offence is one committed abroad. Offences committed abroad can only be prosecuted in Austria under the specific conditions of \u00a7\u00a7\u202f64 or 65 StGB. These provisions govern jurisdiction for certain serious offences or where Austrian nationals are involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An important exception concerns instigators and accessories: according to OGH case law, anyone who intentionally causes or facilitates the commission of an offence abroad from within Austria commits a domestic offence (RIS-Justiz RS0091842). The place of action of the instigation or contribution is in Austria \u2013 domestic jurisdiction therefore exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What rights do victims have if domestic jurisdiction is denied?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If the public prosecutor’s office concludes that further prosecution is inadmissible for legal reasons \u2013 for example due to a lack of domestic jurisdiction \u2013 it must discontinue the investigation under \u00a7 190 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). For victims, this is often a frustrating outcome \u2013 but there is an important legal remedy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
he victim can file an application for continuation of proceedings (Fortf\u00fchrungsantrag) under \u00a7 195 StPO. This application results in a judicial review of the decision to discontinue. The court then examines whether the requirements for domestic jurisdiction are met, provided this has been stated as a ground for continuation. Especially in cases where the public prosecutor’s office has not sufficiently taken into account the broad concept of the place of the offence or the intermediate result, an application for continuation can be successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for modern forms of crime such as online fraud or cryptocurrency fraud?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The increasing digitalisation of crime poses new challenges for criminal law. The good news is that the broad concept of the place of the offence under \u00a7 67(2) StGB is particularly well suited to these cases. The parliamentary materials already confirm its applicability to internet offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online fraud, cryptocurrency fraud and cross-border white-collar offences regularly fall under Austrian jurisdiction if the victim acts in Austria \u2013 whether through a bank transfer, another disposition of assets or the conclusion of a contract from Austria. The disposition of assets in Austria is sufficient, regardless of whether the loss ultimately occurs in Austria or abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those affected, this means: even if the offenders are based abroad and operate via the internet, in many cases prosecution in Austria is possible. And should the public prosecutor’s office wrongly deny jurisdiction, victims can challenge this decision by filing an application for continuation of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion: your rights regarding domestic jurisdiction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Domestic jurisdiction under Austrian criminal law is based on the territoriality principle (\u00a7 62 StGB) and a broad concept of the place of the offence (\u00a7 67(2) StGB). The key points in summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\n- Every criminal offence with a place of action or place of result in Austria falls under Austrian jurisdiction \u2013 regardless of the nationality of those involved.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- An intermediate result in Austria is already sufficient.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- In fraud cases, the victim’s disposition of assets in Austria also establishes a place of the offence in Austria.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Modern forms of crime such as online fraud or cryptocurrency fraud are covered by the broad concept of the place of the offence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- If jurisdiction is wrongly denied, victims can file an application for continuation of proceedings under \u00a7\u202f195(1) StPO.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Do you have questions about domestic jurisdiction, or have you been affected by a criminal offence? The KINDL.trusted team provides competent and committed advice on all matters of criminal law, tax-related legal defence and strategic advisory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Contact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Do you have questions about domestic jurisdiction, or have you been affected by a criminal offence? The KINDL.trusted team provides competent and committed advice on all matters of criminal law, tax-related legal defence and strategic advisory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your contacts from our KINDL.Legal Defense practice area:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If either of these places is in Austria, domestic jurisdiction exists. Both places do not have to be in Austria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What is an intermediate result and why is it decisive?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
A key element of Austrian case law is the intermediate result. According to the case law of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH), it is sufficient for the jurisdiction of the Austrian criminal courts if merely an intermediate result has occurred in Austria, or should have occurred here according to the offender’s intention: this alone establishes a place of the offence in Austria within the meaning of \u00a7 67(2) StGB, so that Austrian criminal laws apply under \u00a7 62 StGB \u2013 even if the offender acted abroad and the final loss only occurs abroad (RIS-Justiz RS0092073).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An intermediate result is an effect that has actually occurred but does not yet constitute the full result required by the offence (OGH 13\u202fOs\u202f32\/25t). An intermediate result is thus a kind of \u201cintermediate stage\u201d on the way to the actual loss. This broad understanding is of great importance for the prosecution of cross-border offences \u2013 especially online fraud.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
How is domestic jurisdiction determined in cases of fraud?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Fraud under \u00a7 146 StGB requires that a person, by deceiving another about facts, induces that person to make a disposition of assets that causes financial loss to that person or a third party. Determining the place of the offence is particularly complex in fraud cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
According to the OGH decision 13\u202fOs\u202f32\/25t, the place of the offence in fraud cases also includes the place where the victim disposes of their assets (intermediate result). If the victim acts in Austria \u2013 for example by making a bank transfer from Austria \u2013 the place of the offence is in Austria.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Furthermore, according to RIS-Justiz RS0092066, the place of the offence in fraud cases under \u00a7\u202f67(2) StGB also includes the place where an actual loss of assets occurs (occurrence of the financial loss, place of result) that a third party suffers as a specific consequence of the offence. This considerably broadens the concept of the place of the offence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What are some practical examples?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The following examples illustrate how Austrian jurisdiction is established in practice:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Deception from within Austria (place of action in Austria)<\/strong>: An offender sends fraudulent emails from Vienna to victims in Germany, and the loss occurs exclusively there. For Austrian jurisdiction, it is sufficient that the offender acted in Austria. The nationality of the victim and the place where the loss occurs are irrelevant.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Crypto fraud via a foreign platform (intermediate result in Austria)<\/strong>: An investor from Vienna is persuaded via social media to transfer around EUR 63,000 to his own account<\/strong> on a crypto platform in Malta and to invest from there in supposed crypto investments. In fraud cases, the victim’s disposition of assets induced by deception already constitutes an intermediate result. If the victim makes these dispositions from Austria, the place of the offence is also here, and the Austrian courts may have jurisdiction. This applies even if the platform and the account are abroad and the loss only finally occurs there.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Credit card fraud abroad (loss suffered by an Austrian bank)<\/strong>: An offender uses an Austrian credit card abroad and deceives a merchant there. However, the loss is borne not by the deceived merchant but by the Austrian bank that issued the card and guarantees the payment. Because the loss occurs in Austria, the Austrian courts have jurisdiction.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
When can Austrian courts also have jurisdiction over offences committed abroad?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
As a general rule: if there is no place of the offence in Austria, the offence is one committed abroad. Offences committed abroad can only be prosecuted in Austria under the specific conditions of \u00a7\u00a7\u202f64 or 65 StGB. These provisions govern jurisdiction for certain serious offences or where Austrian nationals are involved.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
An important exception concerns instigators and accessories: according to OGH case law, anyone who intentionally causes or facilitates the commission of an offence abroad from within Austria commits a domestic offence (RIS-Justiz RS0091842). The place of action of the instigation or contribution is in Austria \u2013 domestic jurisdiction therefore exists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What rights do victims have if domestic jurisdiction is denied?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
If the public prosecutor’s office concludes that further prosecution is inadmissible for legal reasons \u2013 for example due to a lack of domestic jurisdiction \u2013 it must discontinue the investigation under \u00a7 190 of the Austrian Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). For victims, this is often a frustrating outcome \u2013 but there is an important legal remedy:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
he victim can file an application for continuation of proceedings (Fortf\u00fchrungsantrag) under \u00a7 195 StPO. This application results in a judicial review of the decision to discontinue. The court then examines whether the requirements for domestic jurisdiction are met, provided this has been stated as a ground for continuation. Especially in cases where the public prosecutor’s office has not sufficiently taken into account the broad concept of the place of the offence or the intermediate result, an application for continuation can be successful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
What does this mean for modern forms of crime such as online fraud or cryptocurrency fraud?<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The increasing digitalisation of crime poses new challenges for criminal law. The good news is that the broad concept of the place of the offence under \u00a7 67(2) StGB is particularly well suited to these cases. The parliamentary materials already confirm its applicability to internet offences.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Online fraud, cryptocurrency fraud and cross-border white-collar offences regularly fall under Austrian jurisdiction if the victim acts in Austria \u2013 whether through a bank transfer, another disposition of assets or the conclusion of a contract from Austria. The disposition of assets in Austria is sufficient, regardless of whether the loss ultimately occurs in Austria or abroad.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
For those affected, this means: even if the offenders are based abroad and operate via the internet, in many cases prosecution in Austria is possible. And should the public prosecutor’s office wrongly deny jurisdiction, victims can challenge this decision by filing an application for continuation of proceedings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion: your rights regarding domestic jurisdiction<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Domestic jurisdiction under Austrian criminal law is based on the territoriality principle (\u00a7 62 StGB) and a broad concept of the place of the offence (\u00a7 67(2) StGB). The key points in summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- \n
- Every criminal offence with a place of action or place of result in Austria falls under Austrian jurisdiction \u2013 regardless of the nationality of those involved.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- An intermediate result in Austria is already sufficient.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- In fraud cases, the victim’s disposition of assets in Austria also establishes a place of the offence in Austria.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- Modern forms of crime such as online fraud or cryptocurrency fraud are covered by the broad concept of the place of the offence.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
- If jurisdiction is wrongly denied, victims can file an application for continuation of proceedings under \u00a7\u202f195(1) StPO.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
Do you have questions about domestic jurisdiction, or have you been affected by a criminal offence? The KINDL.trusted team provides competent and committed advice on all matters of criminal law, tax-related legal defence and strategic advisory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Contact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Do you have questions about domestic jurisdiction, or have you been affected by a criminal offence? The KINDL.trusted team provides competent and committed advice on all matters of criminal law, tax-related legal defence and strategic advisory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Your contacts from our KINDL.Legal Defense practice area:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
- Crypto fraud via a foreign platform (intermediate result in Austria)<\/strong>: An investor from Vienna is persuaded via social media to transfer around EUR 63,000 to his own account<\/strong> on a crypto platform in Malta and to invest from there in supposed crypto investments. In fraud cases, the victim’s disposition of assets induced by deception already constitutes an intermediate result. If the victim makes these dispositions from Austria, the place of the offence is also here, and the Austrian courts may have jurisdiction. This applies even if the platform and the account are abroad and the loss only finally occurs there.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
![\"Marc](\"https:\/\/teamkindl.legal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/08\/kindl_Marc_Julian_Mayerhoefer-788x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n<\/a>\n \n![\"teamkindl.legal](\"https:\/\/teamkindl.legal\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Picha_Portraet_Sarah-Hoefler_2025_11_06-Kindl-102-min-773x1024.jpg\")
<\/figure>\n\n<\/a>\n \n