Customs Criminal Law – English-Speaking Criminal Defence Lawyer in Frankfurt

Customs Criminal Law and Excise Tax Offences in Germany – English-Speaking Criminal Defence Lawyer in Frankfurt

Customs criminal law in Germany is a highly specialised area at the intersection of criminal tax law, European customs law and German criminal procedure. Investigations may concern import duties, import VAT, excise taxes, incorrect customs declarations, undeclared goods, prohibited imports or exports, tobacco products, online purchases, postal consignments, customs warehousing or the incorrect use of special customs procedures.

For international clients, the legal situation can be particularly difficult to assess. The substantive customs rules are largely based on European Union law, while criminal liability is primarily determined by German legislation, particularly the German Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung – AO). At the same time, investigations may be conducted initially by German customs authorities rather than by the police or the public prosecutor’s office.

Buchert Jacob Peter is based in Frankfurt am Main and represents English-speaking private individuals, entrepreneurs, executives and other accused persons in customs and tax-related criminal proceedings throughout Germany. Our work is centred on criminal defence. For a broader overview of our services, see our page on criminal defence in Germany and our introduction to German criminal procedure.

Your contacts in criminal law and partners at the law firm of Buchert Jacob Peter Rechtsanwälte

What is customs criminal law in Germany?

Customs offences are closely connected with criminal tax law because import and export duties are treated as taxes for the purposes of the German Fiscal Code. Consequently, the general provisions on tax offences contained in Sections 369 et seq. AO apply alongside specific customs-related offences.

The central criminal provision is Section 370 AO on tax evasion. It covers, in particular, situations in which a person provides incorrect or incomplete information concerning facts relevant to taxation or unlawfully fails to inform the competent authority of such facts, thereby causing taxes or customs duties to be understated or an unjustified tax advantage to be obtained.

For an English-language overview of the general offence, see our pages on tax evasion defence in Germany and tax evasion and criminal tax law.

Specific customs offences include, among others:

• tax evasion under Section 370 AO in relation to customs duties, import VAT or excise taxes;
• Bannbruch under Section 372 AO, concerning the import, export or transit of goods contrary to a prohibition;
• aggravated forms of smuggling under Section 373 AO;
• Steuerhehlerei under Section 374 AO, broadly involving the acquisition, handling or distribution of goods in respect of which excise taxes or import or export duties have previously been evaded;
• administrative customs offences where the requirements for intentional criminal liability are not met.

Section 372 AO expressly covers the import, export or transit of objects contrary to a prohibition and refers, subject to the statutory conditions, to the penalties applicable under Section 370 AO. Section 374 AO contains a separate offence relating to goods affected by previous tax evasion or customs offences. The distinction between these offences can be highly relevant to the legal classification of the alleged conduct, participation issues and sentencing.

The Union Customs Code and German criminal liability

Germany forms part of the EU customs union. Customs duties at the external borders of the European Union are therefore governed primarily by the Union Customs Code, Regulation (EU) No 952/2013, together with its delegated and implementing legislation. The Union Customs Code establishes a uniform framework for goods entering or leaving the customs territory of the European Union.

This interaction between EU customs legislation and German criminal law is one of the main reasons customs criminal cases require detailed analysis. Before criminal liability can be assessed, it is often necessary to determine the underlying customs-law position:

• Who was legally responsible for presenting the goods to customs?
• Who submitted or was responsible for the customs declaration?
• Which customs procedure applied?
• Which tariff classification was correct?
• What was the customs value?
• What was the origin of the goods?
• Were preferential tariff rules applicable?
• Were import VAT or excise duties due?
• Was a specific authorisation required?
• Was there a duty to inform customs authorities about a subsequent event or irregularity?

Only after these preliminary customs-law questions have been resolved can it be determined whether an accused person actually breached a legally relevant duty and whether the subjective requirements of a criminal offence, particularly intent, can be proven.

Incorrect customs declarations under Section 370 AO

A frequent allegation is that incorrect or incomplete information was provided to customs authorities. Typical examples concern the nature, quantity, customs value, origin, destination or intended use of imported goods.

The prosecution must nevertheless establish considerably more than the mere existence of an incorrect customs declaration. In a criminal case, the authorities must determine the personal responsibility of the accused, the relevant customs obligation, the objective inaccuracy of the information, the resulting tax or customs consequence and the accused person’s knowledge and intent.

This distinction is particularly significant where customs documentation has passed through several parties, such as manufacturers, exporters, freight forwarders, customs representatives, importers, purchasers and employees responsible for logistics or accounting. The fact that a declaration was objectively incorrect does not by itself establish that a particular individual intentionally committed tax evasion.

Failure to declare goods and failure to present goods to customs

German customs criminal law also covers criminal liability by omission. Section 370(1) no. 2 AO applies where a person who is legally required to provide tax-relevant information unlawfully leaves the competent authority unaware of those facts.

For the defence, the question of who was personally subject to the relevant legal duty is fundamental. Criminal liability by omission cannot simply be transferred to every person who was commercially or factually connected with a shipment. The precise statutory duty, the customs procedure and the person’s actual legal role must be identified.

This is one of the most important distinctions in customs criminal defence: the authorities must prove not merely that somebody failed to comply with customs rules, but that the particular accused person was subject to the relevant disclosure or presentation obligation and intentionally breached it.

The green customs channel at airports

Airport cases illustrate the distinction between an incorrect declaration and an unlawful omission particularly clearly.

Travellers entering through the green customs channel may, depending on the precise circumstances, be treated as implicitly declaring that they are not carrying goods that must be declared. If the conduct is perceived as a communicative act towards customs officials, an allegation under Section 370(1) no. 1 AO may arise.

If no such declaration can be established, the legal analysis may instead focus on whether the traveller failed to comply with a duty to present or declare the goods under Section 370(1) no. 2 AO.

The exact sequence of events is therefore important. CCTV footage, the position of customs officers, the location at which the traveller was stopped, the design of the customs area, baggage movements and statements made during the control may all become relevant evidence.

Attempt or completed offence?

The distinction between an attempted and a completed offence can also depend on the precise stage reached in the customs process. In airport and border cases, German case law has dealt with the point at which the customs procedure has progressed sufficiently for the alleged tax shortfall to have occurred.

The location and time of the customs intervention, sometimes discussed in connection with the customs-office area or “Amtsplatz”, may therefore affect whether the prosecution alleges an attempted or completed offence. This can have substantial consequences for the legal assessment and sentencing.

Customs value, tariff classification and the amount of alleged evasion

The alleged amount of customs duties or taxes evaded is often one of the central issues in customs criminal proceedings.

Under the Union Customs Code, customs valuation generally begins with the transaction value, meaning the price actually paid or payable for goods sold for export to the customs territory of the European Union, subject to the applicable statutory adjustments. Where this method cannot be used, further valuation methods must be considered in the prescribed order.

In criminal proceedings, however, an administrative customs calculation cannot simply replace the criminal court’s own assessment of the evidence. Where the authorities rely on estimates, reference values or reconstructed prices, the evidential basis of those calculations must be examined carefully.

This is particularly relevant in cases involving cigarettes, tobacco, high-value consumer goods, repeated imports, informal transactions or seized goods for which no reliable invoice is available.

The defence may need to analyse:

• invoices and purchase contracts;
• payment records;
• freight and insurance costs;
• electronic communications;
• product specifications;
• customs classifications;
• country-of-origin documentation;
• comparable transactions;
• the methodology used by customs investigators;
• whether assumptions favourable to the accused have been sufficiently considered.

The amount attributed to an alleged customs offence can significantly influence charging decisions, sentencing considerations and the overall direction of the criminal proceedings.

Anti-dumping duties and customs criminal proceedings

Customs criminal investigations can also concern anti-dumping duties. These duties are imposed under EU law on certain products from specified countries where the statutory requirements for anti-dumping measures are met.

Criminal allegations may arise, for example, where investigators suspect that the origin, exporter, producer, classification or route of goods was incorrectly declared in order to avoid anti-dumping duties.

Such proceedings can be technically demanding because the defence may have to reconstruct international supply chains and examine the EU legislation applicable during the relevant period. The criminal assessment must be based on the legal framework that actually applied to the transaction in question.

Postal shipments, e-commerce and online purchases

Cross-border e-commerce has created a substantial number of customs cases involving postal and courier shipments. Customs data may be based on electronic declarations, CN 22 or CN 23 information, commercial invoices and information supplied by senders, online marketplaces or logistics providers.

Common allegations include:

• understating the value of goods;
• describing commercial goods as gifts;
• providing an incorrect description of the contents;
• splitting shipments to avoid customs consequences;
• incorrect tariff classification;
• incorrect statements concerning the origin of goods;
• submitting inaccurate invoices when goods are collected from a customs office.

An addressee is not automatically criminally responsible merely because an incorrect declaration accompanied a parcel. It is necessary to determine who provided the relevant information, whether the recipient participated in preparing or arranging the declaration and what the recipient knew.

Where a person subsequently acquires goods in respect of which duties or excise taxes were previously evaded, the legal issue may shift away from the original tax evasion towards Steuerhehlerei under Section 374 AO. This distinction requires a careful reconstruction of the transaction and the accused person’s knowledge.

Tobacco, cigarettes and excise tax investigations

Tobacco cases form a particularly important part of customs and excise tax criminal law. Investigations may concern cigarettes imported without payment of duties, illicit tobacco products, repeated cross-border transport, storage, distribution or acquisition of untaxed goods.

The relevant allegations can involve customs duties, tobacco tax and import VAT as well as tax handling offences. Questions of quantity, origin, purchase price, transport route and individual knowledge frequently determine the criminal assessment.

Further information is available in our English Legal Dictionary on tobacco tax evasion in Germany.

“Rip-off” cases – goods hidden without the carrier’s knowledge

Another important scenario involves goods deliberately hidden by third parties in a vehicle, container, consignment or luggage without the knowledge of the person transporting them. These cases are sometimes referred to as “rip-off” scenarios.

Customs law and criminal law must be kept separate. A person may objectively be involved in transporting goods that should have been presented to customs while nevertheless lacking the intent necessary for criminal liability.

The central defence issue is therefore knowledge. Investigators may examine travel routes, communications, baggage ownership, vehicle access, packaging, payment arrangements, behaviour before and after the journey and relationships between the persons involved.

The mere physical presence of undeclared goods is not a substitute for proof that the accused knew about them and intentionally participated in the customs offence.

Customs warehousing, temporary admission and end-use procedures

Customs criminal proceedings are not limited to straightforward border crossings. They also arise in connection with special customs procedures, including customs warehousing, temporary admission and end-use arrangements.

Potential allegations include incorrect information when goods are placed under a procedure, incorrect information when the procedure is discharged, unauthorised removal of goods, failure to observe conditions of an authorisation or failure to notify customs authorities of circumstances that affect the procedure.

These cases often require a detailed review of the relevant authorisation, customs records, electronic declarations, internal responsibilities and correspondence with customs authorities.

A defence analysis should distinguish carefully between an administrative irregularity, negligence, recklessness and intentional conduct. Criminal liability under Section 370 AO requires the statutory subjective elements to be established; an objectively incorrect customs procedure does not automatically prove intentional tax evasion.

Bannbruch – prohibited imports, exports and transit

Section 372 AO governs Bannbruch. The offence concerns the import, export or transit of goods contrary to a legal prohibition. Depending on the nature of the goods, separate criminal statutes may take precedence.

Customs controls may therefore become the starting point for investigations extending well beyond tax law. Examples can include prohibited or restricted goods and, in appropriate cases, suspected narcotics importation.

Where narcotics allegations arise, different substantive criminal provisions apply. Further information is available in our Legal Dictionary on drug import offences and organised groups.

Steuerhehlerei under Section 374 AO

Steuerhehlerei is conceptually distinct from committing the original tax evasion. It can become relevant where goods in respect of which excise taxes or import or export duties have already been evaded are subsequently acquired, obtained, sold or otherwise dealt with under the conditions specified by Section 374 AO.

This distinction is particularly important in distribution chains. A person who buys goods after they have already been unlawfully imported may occupy a different criminal-law position from the person responsible for the original customs declaration.

The defence must therefore determine when the alleged tax offence was completed, when the accused became involved, what role they performed and what they knew about the customs or excise status of the goods.

Investigations by German customs authorities

Customs criminal investigations differ from many ordinary criminal cases because specialised customs authorities can play a central investigative role. Under Section 386 AO, the competent fiscal authority investigates suspected tax offences. The statute expressly includes the Hauptzollamt among the authorities covered by this framework. Where the statutory requirements are met, fiscal authorities can conduct criminal investigations with powers corresponding to those of the public prosecutor’s office within the limits established by the Fiscal Code.

Depending on the nature and seriousness of the case, customs investigation offices, Hauptzollämter and public prosecutors may all become involved. More complex cases can ultimately lead to indictments before criminal courts or specialised economic crime divisions.

For the accused, the decisive point is that a customs interview, written hearing or request for an explanation can already form part of a criminal investigation. Statements should therefore be assessed from a criminal defence perspective rather than treated simply as administrative correspondence.

Our overview of the rights of an accused person in German criminal proceedings explains the procedural position in more detail.

Cross-border investigations and international exchange of information

Customs criminal law is inherently international. Goods, documents, payments, freight records, companies and witnesses may be located in several jurisdictions. German customs and tax authorities cooperate with authorities in other EU Member States and third countries through customs-cooperation mechanisms, mutual assistance arrangements and criminal judicial cooperation.

Within the European Union, information can be exchanged through specialised customs-cooperation structures. In criminal investigations, judicial cooperation instruments may also be used to obtain evidence abroad. Depending on the procedural route, the public prosecutor’s office or other competent authorities may become involved in requests for international investigative measures.

For the defence, cross-border evidence must be examined just as critically as domestic evidence. The manner in which information was obtained, the legal basis for transmission, the scope of the request and compliance with essential procedural safeguards may become relevant to admissibility and evidential weight.

Searches and seizures in customs investigations

Customs investigations frequently involve searches of private residences, offices, warehouses, vehicles and business premises. Investigators may secure computers, mobile phones, accounting records, customs documentation, invoices, freight papers and electronic communications.

The legal requirements and defence options relating to a search during a German criminal investigation and the seizure of evidence are explained separately in our English Legal Dictionary.

After a search, an effective defence usually begins by obtaining and analysing the search warrant, seizure records, inventories and the underlying investigation file. It is often necessary to compare the authorities’ theory with the actual customs documentation, contractual relationships and allocation of responsibilities.

Access to the investigation file

In many customs criminal cases, a meaningful defence position cannot be developed until the investigation file has been reviewed. Section 147 StPO governs access to files in German criminal proceedings.

The file may reveal, among other things:

• the exact offence under investigation;
• customs calculations and alleged tax losses;
• customs declarations and shipment data;
• witness statements;
• reports by customs investigators;
• communications obtained from third parties;
• banking and payment information;
• search and seizure documentation;
• international requests for information;
• expert assessments or valuation methods.

Only after these materials have been examined can the defence reliably assess whether a written statement, an application for dismissal or another procedural step is appropriate.

Defence strategies in customs criminal proceedings

1. Identify the precise customs obligation

The first question is not simply whether a customs irregularity occurred. It is whether the accused personally had the legal obligation that the prosecution alleges was breached.

This is particularly important for allegations under Section 370(1) no. 2 AO. Liability by omission requires a legally relevant duty to provide information. Identifying the declarant, importer, representative, carrier, authorisation holder or other responsible person can therefore be decisive.

2. Separate incorrect information from omission

A distinction must be drawn between actively providing incorrect or incomplete information under Section 370(1) no. 1 AO and unlawfully withholding tax-relevant information under Section 370(1) no. 2 AO.

Airport green-channel cases are a typical example. Whether the conduct constitutes an implied declaration or merely a failure to present goods can depend on the precise circumstances.

3. Examine intent separately from the customs irregularity

Customs law is technically complex. Incorrect classifications, valuations, origin determinations or procedural choices may arise without intentional tax evasion.

The prosecution must establish the subjective element of the criminal offence. The defence should therefore examine what information the accused actually possessed, which advisers or service providers were involved, what documents were available and whether the accused had a plausible understanding of the customs position.

4. Challenge the alleged amount of evaded duties

Customs value, tariff classification, origin and applicable duty rates can materially affect the alleged tax shortfall. Administrative estimates should be examined critically where the criminal accusation depends on them.

5. Determine whether the offence was attempted or completed

The timing of intervention can affect whether the offence was completed. This is particularly relevant at airports, customs offices and border controls.

6. Distinguish principal liability from later involvement

Transporters, purchasers, intermediaries and recipients do not necessarily share the same criminal responsibility. The original customs offence must be distinguished from later acquisition or distribution of goods potentially falling within Section 374 AO.

7. Examine procedural evidence

Search warrants, seized data, customs databases, witness statements and cross-border information exchanges form part of the evidential case and should be examined independently rather than accepted as a complete reconstruction of events.

What to do after receiving a customs summons or written hearing

A person accused of a criminal offence in Germany has the right not to provide an incriminating statement. A police or customs request for an interview should therefore be distinguished from a summons issued by a public prosecutor or court, for which different procedural rules may apply.

Further information is available on our pages concerning a police summons in Germany and a summons for interrogation of the accused.

In practice, the following steps are usually relevant from a defence perspective:

• do not provide a substantive statement before the allegation and investigation file have been assessed;
• preserve customs declarations, invoices, freight documents, tracking records, authorisations and correspondence;
• do not alter or delete potentially relevant electronic records;
• identify the persons involved in preparing customs documentation;
• reconstruct the actual transport and supply chain;
• record the precise circumstances of any airport or customs control;
• have deadlines and procedural documents reviewed;
• obtain access to the investigation file through criminal defence counsel.

Possible outcomes of a customs criminal investigation

A customs investigation does not necessarily result in a criminal trial. Depending on the evidence, the amount involved, the degree of suspicion and the procedural situation, proceedings may be discontinued, resolved by a penalty order or proceed to indictment and a main hearing.

Our overview of the course of criminal proceedings in Germany explains the main procedural stages. Where the prosecution considers the case suitable for resolution without an immediate main hearing, a penalty order (Strafbefehl) may be sought. Applications and defence submissions aimed at terminating proceedings can also become relevant; see our entry on the application for dismissal of criminal proceedings.

Customs investigations involving arrest or pre-trial detention

More serious customs cases can involve an arrest warrant, particularly where substantial alleged losses, organised structures, repeated conduct or cross-border circumstances coincide with a statutory ground for detention.

International clients may face particular scrutiny concerning an alleged risk of flight. German law does not permit detention merely because a suspect is a foreign national, but residence abroad, international connections and the individual circumstances of the case can form part of the judicial assessment.

Further information is available on arrest warrants in Germany, pre-trial detention and risk of flight in German criminal proceedings.

Customs criminal defence for international clients in Frankfurt and throughout Germany

Frankfurt am Main is an important location for customs criminal defence because of Frankfurt Airport, international trade, logistics, financial services and the presence of the Zollfahndungsamt Frankfurt am Main. However, customs proceedings are not confined to Frankfurt. Buchert Jacob Peter represents clients in criminal investigations throughout Germany.

International clients often require more than a literal translation of German procedural terminology. It is important to explain the different roles of customs investigators, Hauptzollämter, prosecutors and criminal courts, as well as the procedural significance of a hearing letter, search warrant, seizure order, penalty order or indictment.

Our English-speaking criminal defence lawyers in Frankfurt advise and defend clients from the investigation stage through court proceedings and legal remedies. An overview of our lawyers is available on our attorneys page.

FAQ – Customs Criminal Law and Criminal Defence in Germany

What is customs criminal law in Germany?

Customs criminal law concerns criminal offences connected with the import, export, transit or customs treatment of goods. It combines EU customs legislation with German criminal tax law, particularly Sections 369 et seq. AO and Section 370 AO.

Can an incorrect customs declaration constitute tax evasion?

Yes. If incorrect or incomplete information concerning tax-relevant facts results in customs duties, import VAT or excise taxes being understated, Section 370(1) no. 1 AO may apply if the required subjective elements, particularly intent, are established.

What is the difference between an incorrect declaration and failure to present goods?

An incorrect or incomplete declaration may fall within Section 370(1) no. 1 AO. An unlawful failure by a person who is legally required to inform customs authorities may instead fall within Section 370(1) no. 2 AO. The distinction can be important in airport cases and other situations involving undeclared goods.

Does using the green customs channel automatically constitute tax evasion?

No automatic conclusion should be drawn. The exact circumstances must be examined. Depending on the situation, using the green channel may be interpreted as an implied declaration that no declarable goods are being carried. In other cases, the issue may concern a failure to present goods. Intent must also be proven.

Am I automatically responsible if an online parcel contains an incorrect customs declaration?

No. Criminal responsibility depends on who supplied the incorrect information, who was legally responsible for the declaration and what the recipient knew or intended. A recipient is not automatically the perpetrator of the original tax evasion merely because the parcel was addressed to them.

What is Steuerhehlerei?

Steuerhehlerei under Section 374 AO concerns certain dealings with products or goods in respect of which excise taxes or import or export duties have previously been evaded or which are connected with specified customs offences. It must be distinguished from participation in the original tax evasion.

What happens if smuggled goods were hidden in my luggage or shipment without my knowledge?

Criminal liability generally requires the necessary subjective element. If goods were placed in luggage, a vehicle or a shipment without the carrier’s knowledge, the defence must focus on whether the prosecution can prove knowledge and intentional participation. Physical transport alone does not establish intent.

Can customs authorities search my home or business premises?

Yes, where the statutory requirements for a criminal search are met. Searches in customs cases may concern residences, companies, warehouses, vehicles or electronic devices. Search warrants and the scope of seized material should be reviewed from a criminal defence perspective.

Can customs seize my mobile phone or computer?

Items and data that may have evidential relevance can be secured or seized subject to the requirements of German criminal procedure. The legality, scope and proportionality of the measure may be reviewed.

Should I answer questions from German customs investigators?

An accused person has the right not to incriminate themselves. Before providing a substantive explanation, it is generally important to establish the precise accusation and review the investigation file. The procedural situation differs depending on whether the contact comes from customs investigators, police, the public prosecutor’s office or a court.

Can a customs offence lead to an arrest warrant?

Yes, in sufficiently serious cases and where the statutory requirements for pre-trial detention are satisfied. An allegation alone is not sufficient. There must also be a legally recognised ground for detention, and detention must be proportionate.

Does later payment or extinguishment of the customs debt remove criminal liability?

Not necessarily. The customs-law treatment of the debt and the criminal-law assessment must be distinguished. In many situations, subsequent payment or later extinguishment of a customs debt does not retrospectively eliminate an offence that was already completed. It may nevertheless be relevant to the further proceedings and sentencing. The exact effect depends on the individual legal and factual situation.

Can customs duties be estimated in a criminal case?

Estimation may become necessary where reliable transaction information is unavailable. However, criminal courts must assess the evidential basis under criminal procedural standards. Administrative reference values or estimates cannot simply replace a proper criminal-law evaluation of the evidence.

Can German customs authorities obtain evidence from another country?

Yes. Customs offences frequently involve international cooperation. Depending on the case, German authorities may use EU customs-cooperation mechanisms, mutual assistance arrangements or criminal judicial cooperation instruments to obtain information and evidence from abroad.

Can customs proceedings be discontinued without a trial?

Yes. Depending on the evidence and procedural circumstances, an investigation can be terminated without an indictment. In other cases, the prosecution may seek a penalty order or file an indictment. Defence submissions after access to the investigation file can therefore be important during the investigation stage.

Do I need a German lawyer if I live abroad?

A person facing a German criminal investigation may be represented by a German criminal defence lawyer irrespective of whether they live in Germany. For international clients, English-language communication can be particularly useful when dealing with customs investigators, prosecutors and German procedural documents.

Contact our criminal defence lawyers for customs and criminal tax proceedings in Frankfurt

Customs criminal proceedings require a combination of substantive customs-law analysis, criminal tax expertise and detailed knowledge of German criminal procedure. Our lawyers advise and defend accused persons in Frankfurt am Main and throughout Germany.

Our team combines experience in criminal defence and criminal tax law. Depending on the case, this includes examination of customs declarations, import duties, excise taxes, customs valuation, responsibilities within international transactions and the procedural evidence collected by customs investigators.

Rechtsanwältin und Fachanwältin für Strafrecht Dr. Caroline Jacob

Rechtsanwalt und Fachanwalt für Strafrecht Frank M. Peter

Als Kooperationspartner Steuerberater und ehemaliger Steuerfahnder Frank Wehrheim

Relevant additional qualifications within our team include:

• Zertifizierter Berater im Steuerstrafrecht (DAA)
• Zertifizierter Bilanzierungsexperte (Steuer-Fachschule Dr. Endriss)
• Abgeschlossenes Weiterbildungsstudium im Steuerstrafrecht (FernUni Hagen)
• Über 25 Jahre Erfahrung als Steuerfahnder
• Fachanwälte für Strafrecht

Our law firm Buchert Jacob Peter has worked in Frankfurt am Main for more than 25 years with experienced lawyers specialising in criminal defence. We represent clients throughout Germany.

Contact Buchert Jacob Peter – Criminal Defence Lawyers in Frankfurt and throughout Germany

Telephone: +49 69 710 33 330
Email: kanzlei@dr-buchert.de
Further contact information: Contact Buchert Jacob Peter

Further information: Criminal Tax Law, Criminal Defence, White-Collar Crime Defence, Attorneys, Legal Dictionary.