Corporate Fines and Supervision Duties under §§ 30, 130 OWiG – Defence, Compliance and Internal Investigations

Overview

Germany has no independent corporate criminal law. Sanctions against companies are imposed through the Administrative Offences Act (OWiG):

• • § 30 OWiG: Corporate fine where a manager commits an offence in that capacity or for the benefit of the entity.
• • § 130 OWiG: Failure of the owner or management to exercise proper supervision, allowing or facilitating violations.

Both provisions are central to corporate defence, compliance and internal investigations.

Why §§ 30 and 130 OWiG Matter

In the absence of a separate corporate criminal code, §§ 30 and 130 OWiG form the legal backbone of corporate sanctions. They have both repressive (punishment/confiscation) and preventive (incentive for effective compliance and investigations) effects.

§ 30 OWiG – Conditions and Attribution

• • Who: Legal persons and associations, including partnerships and some public entities.
• • Attribution: Offence by a management person (board member, authorised representative, managing director, supervisory body, etc.) in their role or for the entity’s benefit.
• • Functional link: The act must relate to the managerial function, not purely private conduct.

Fine Amounts and Confiscation

• • Up to €10 million for intentional, €5 million for negligent offences.
• • Additional confiscation of economic gains; statutory limit may be exceeded (§ 30 (3) in conjunction with § 17 (4) OWiG).
• • If a fine is imposed under § 30 (1), further confiscation of the same proceeds is barred (§ 30 (5)).
• • Entries above €200 appear in the Central Trade Register.

§ 130 OWiG – Supervision Duties of Owners and Management

• • Applies to owners or managers of any enterprise; delegation possible, ultimate responsibility remains.
• • Offence: omission of necessary supervisory measures; violations could have been prevented or significantly impeded.
• • Maximum fine €1 million (§ 130 (3) OWiG).

Practical Supervision Framework

• • Selection of qualified staff and supervisors
• • Clear organisation and responsibilities
• • Ongoing instruction and training
• • Risk-based monitoring and documentation
• • Proper reaction and sanctions for breaches

Interlink between §§ 130 and 30 OWiG

Typical pattern: an employee commits an offence → management fails supervision (§ 130) → corporate fine imposed under § 30 OWiG on the company.

Special Areas – GDPR and Antitrust

• • GDPR (Art. 83): fines directly against companies, without individual attribution.
• • Antitrust: turnover-based fines, leniency programmes, specialised authorities.

Compliance, Internal Investigations and Defence

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH 1 StR 265/16, para. 118) recognises that an effective Compliance Management System (CMS) can mitigate fines. Internal investigations are standard: the Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG) explicitly lists them as a follow-up measure of the internal reporting office.

• • Internal reporting channels and ombudspersons
• • Investigation guidelines and forensic methods
• • Remediation, training and controls
• • Documentation of effectiveness

Defence Strategy

• • Early defence coordination, evidence preservation, file access
• • Presentation of CMS and supervision systems
• • Review of benefit calculation (sanction vs confiscation)
• • Evaluate cooperation and leniency options
• • Strengthen rules, training and controls

FAQ: Corporate Fines and Supervision under §§ 30 / 130 OWiG

Does § 30 require an identified offender?

No. It suffices that at least one management person acted in a way fulfilling the offence; enrichment of the entity also triggers liability.

Can misconduct by regular employees lead to § 30 liability?

Yes – through § 130: inadequate supervision by management can attribute the breach to the company.

What are the financial risks?

Up to €10 million (intent), €5 million (negligence) plus confiscation; § 130 up to €1 million. GDPR or antitrust regimes may impose higher turnover-based fines.

What does “significantly impeded” mean in § 130?

Proper supervision should materially reduce risk; absolute prevention is not required.

Can proceeds still be confiscated after a fine?

No – a fine under § 30 (1) bars confiscation of the same proceeds (§ 30 (5) OWiG).

Does effective compliance reduce fines?

Yes. The BGH confirms that effective and improved compliance systems can mitigate sanctions.

Are internal investigations optional?

No – they are best practice and explicitly recognised in the Whistleblower Act as remedial measures.

Does delegation relieve responsibility?

Delegation is possible, but overall responsibility remains with the owner; selection, instruction and monitoring duties persist.

Do §§ 30 / 130 apply to professional firms or non-profits?

Yes. The decisive factor is operating an enterprise, regardless of purpose or legal form.

Are all decisions recorded in a register?

Only final decisions exceeding €200 appear in the Central Trade Register.

---

Contact our Corporate and Criminal Defence Lawyers in Frankfurt

Contact us – your English-speaking criminal and corporate defence lawyers in Frankfurt and throughout Germany:

• • Frank M. Peter, Lawyer, Specialist in Criminal Law
• • Dr Caroline Jacob, Lawyer, Specialist in Criminal Law
• • Of Counsel: Prof. Dr Frank Peter Schuster
• • Cooperation Partner: Tax Consultant and Former Tax Investigator Frank Wehrheim

Buchert Jacob Peter has operated in Frankfurt am Main for over 25 years, advising nationwide on corporate compliance, white-collar crime and tax offence defence.

Phone: +49 69 710 33 330
Email: kanzlei@dr-buchert.de

More on this topic:
Tax Criminal Law |
Criminal Defence |
White-Collar Crime |
Lawyers

• Teilen