Other topics related to... : Indication because of §285 StGB (Page 26)

roro28 wrote on 04/03/2019 17:34: Hello everyone,

after here the thread of Unrealmaster32 on this topic makes high waves, I would like to recommend you this very readable, legally deep article about it:

https://www.elookon.de/artikel/montanablack-und-das-gluecksspiel

The article comes to this conclusion:
The bottom line is that it is highly questionable whether YouTuber and livestreamer MontanaBlack has committed a criminal offense under Section 285 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) for participating in online gambling. In the author's opinion, this is admittedly not the case - and must not be the case against the backdrop of constitutional objections, a legal situation that can hardly be penetrated and depends on supreme court decisions, the omnipresence of gaming offers on the Internet and the massive advertising of these. The defendant also has every reason to claim a prohibition error (§ 17 StGB), because more than that criminal liability is highly questionable (and the only verdict that can be found on the Internet that convicted a participant was overturned), simply cannot be established. This must not lead to restricting oneself in the sense of anticipatory obedience. Criminal law may aim at deterrence through its general preventive effect; however, this aim is only legitimate if it is sufficiently determined, i.e. understandable.

Ultimately, an accusation of money laundering (Section 261 of the German Criminal Code) is also no longer applicable if it was made in connection with participation in unlawful gambling, since the possible wins were not obtained unlawfully. The author is currently unable to assess whether or under which conditions criminal liability for advertising (Section 284 (4) of the German Criminal Code) may nevertheless be considered.

Kind regards
roro28

Latino wrote on 04/03/2019 at 18:53: @roro28
Why should anyone pay attention to this article ? Yes, it is written worth reading, but who is the author and what qualifies Him to give an assessment of the legal situation ?

Why should one believe this pseudonym more than a media lawyer known by name ?

If he cannot estimate the punishability in the last sentence (§ 284), why can he do so for the other points ?

Why has the author in the column "article" only one article ?

If he is legally so knowledgeable, why does he have then no imprint ? By the Donationpage a profit-making intention is given...

Prohibition error kömmt by the way probably hardly in question since he was sufficiently pointed out to a possible illegal action.

From my point of view the article is worthless ...

This post has been translated automatically

Unrealmaster32 wrote on 10/16/2020 at 1:18 pm: Have written to you in communicater.

This post has been translated automatically

Babygirl966 wrote on 04.07.2023 at 22:12:

Can you message me sometime?

This post has been translated automatically