Fraud in the stable: farmer has to pay back 600,000 euros in insurance!

Fraud in the stable: farmer has to pay back 600,000 euros in insurance!

In a remarkable case of insurance abuse, a farmer obtained a sum of over 600,000 euros from various liability insurance companies through fictitious accidents. The courts have found the allegations to be well-founded and are now faced with the challenge of forcing the farmer to pay back in full. The decision is now final and highlights the risks that fraudulent practices can pose.

The incidents surrounding the farmer resulted in a number of legal disputes. Courts classified the reported incidents as invalid and confirmed that the farmer had violated the offense of insurance abuse according to Section 265 of the Criminal Code (StGB). This regulation covers actions in which people actively influence insured property in order to gain unlawful advantages for themselves or third parties.

Legal consequences

The legal consequences of these judgments are serious. Reclaiming the insurance benefits could lead to a long legal battle for the farmer. Insurance companies have the right to demand a refund, even years after a payment, if there is suspicion of fraud. In this case, the requested sum now exceeds 600,000 euros, including interest. This dimension of fraud makes the ruling a warning example for other companies, especially those with higher insurance sums.

An acquittal in a criminal case does not protect against civil liability. This means that the farmer can be held responsible for the financial damages even without criminal punishment. The case raises the question of how important careful and complete documentation of damage reports is for farmers and other businesses.

Insurance abuse in detail

Insurance abuse is dealt with in German law under Section 265 of the Criminal Code and includes various actions aimed at obtaining insurance benefits by fraud. According to the juracademy.de The objective facts include damaging, destroying or impairing the usability of an insured item. The farmer has also proven that he acted with the intention of obtaining unlawful advantages. This aspect is crucial because both dolus eventualis and direct intentional acts are punishable.

The protection extends to property insurers. In the present case, the farmer gained advantages by reporting false accidents by taking advantage of the contractual provisions of the insurance. The various offenses of Section 265, such as setting aside or leaving insured items, were incorrectly applied in this context, which led the courts to their decision.