{"id":6765,"date":"2024-12-11T15:47:51","date_gmt":"2024-12-11T14:47:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/atb.law\/?post_type=blog-post&p=6765"},"modified":"2026-06-07T21:56:11","modified_gmt":"2026-06-07T19:56:11","slug":"criminal-procedure-reform-2024-strengthening-of-victim-rights-in-online-cryptocurrency-fraud","status":"publish","type":"blog-post","link":"https:\/\/atb.law\/en\/blog-post\/strafprozessreform-2024-staerkung-der-opferrechte-bei-online-betrug-mit-kryptowaehrungen\/","title":{"rendered":"Criminal Procedure Reform 2024"},"content":{"rendered":"

Previous legal situation was characterized by legal uncertainty even in the event of success<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The increasing number of online scams has put the Code of Criminal Procedure and the victims' nerves to a severe test. Although procedural provisions allow fraud victims to be compensated within the framework of criminal proceedings, this is generally only the case if the perpetrator is convicted and damages are awarded. Previously, victims\u2014even when assets were seized\u2014had to await the outcome of the main proceedings or obtain an execution title against the perpetrators in order to be compensated for the damage suffered.<\/p>\n

However, if the perpetrator remains unknown despite the implementation of useful investigative measures or their whereabouts cannot be ascertained, an indictment cannot be issued. In the absence of an indictment, there is also no main trial and thus no chance of an award of damages to a private party. Furthermore, the civil law enforcement of claims fails when the perpetrators are unknown.<\/p>\n

Separate claims for surrender in preliminary proceedings were previously provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure only for physical objects \u2013 such as cash. For cryptocurrencies and book money, there has been no statutory regulation for this so far. Even when the trail of the seized assets could be proven beyond doubt back to their original origin from the victim's crypto or bank account, a claim to surrender by the victim was repeatedly denied by the courts through the analog application of the law.<\/p>\n

Thus, the victims faced an insoluble stalemate: although their assets were secured and confiscated by the Austrian law enforcement authorities, their release was refused. Again and again, the victims' confiscated assets were declared forfeit. As a result, the Republic of Austria is enriched by the amount of the victim's loss in such cases. For the victims, this is a result that is difficult to accept and, above all, unfair.<\/p>\n

Clear definition of assets creates legal certainty for victims of online fraud<\/strong><\/h2>\n

The increasing use of cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin, Ethereum, or USDT has presented the criminal justice system with new challenges. However, even in the case of book money, the return of fraudulently obtained funds to the victim during preliminary proceedings was not provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure and could only be resolved by means of a controversial legal analogy. The Criminal Procedure Law Amendment Act 2024 addresses this problem and creates clear statutory regulations for the procedural securing and enforcement of victims' claims:<\/p>\n