Defence in Sections 184b and 184c StGB Cases

By Dr. Julius Hagen, Attorney-at-Law

Allegation under Sections 184b or 184c StGB: what matters legally now

An allegation involving child or youth pornography is one of the most serious and destabilising situations in German sexual-offence law. For the person affected, the issue often goes far beyond the criminal investigation itself and may include a house search, seizure of phones and laptops, professional consequences, reputational damage, and immediate personal pressure. That is why an early and precise legal assessment of the actual allegation is so important.

Not every file that appears incriminating automatically fulfils the statutory offence in the form alleged by the authorities. The decisive questions are what material is actually involved, whether it is legally covered by Section 184b or 184c StGB, whether it can be attributed to a specific person, and which exact statutory act the authorities are relying on.

The difference between child pornography and youth pornography under German law

Section 184b StGB concerns child-pornographic content, meaning pornographic content involving persons under 14. Section 184c StGB concerns youth-pornographic content, meaning corresponding content involving persons aged 14 to under 18. This distinction is relevant not only as a matter of terminology, but also because it can significantly affect legal classification, sentencing exposure, and the overall dynamics of the proceedings.

The provisions do not cover only depictions of sexual acts. Depending on the statutory variant, they may also cover sexually provocative posing or sexually provocative depictions of uncovered genitals or buttocks. At the same time, the statute requires pornographic content. Not every naked image of a minor automatically falls within Sections 184b or 184c. For that reason, it is important to clarify at an early stage which provision is said to apply and whether the age classification is actually sustainable.

Which specific act is actually being alleged

In these proceedings, the content alone is not enough. The exact statutory act also matters. In legal terms, there is a major difference between possession, retrieval, storage, forwarding, dissemination, production, and enabling another person to obtain possession.

For the defence, it is therefore essential to clarify at an early stage what exactly the allegation is based on. Not every communication scenario amounts to dissemination. Not every stored file proves possession in the criminal-law sense. And not every digital trace supports the exact act the authorities claim.

Why digital traces can be misleading

Many investigations are triggered by messenger data, downloads, browser cache, cloud synchronisation, thumbnails, or platform-based reports. In cases of this kind, the allegation often grows out of technical traces whose legal meaning must not be assumed too quickly.

The question is therefore often not just whether a file appeared somewhere, but how it reached the device, whether it was consciously stored, whether it was generated automatically, and who actually had access to the device or account. In cases involving automatically generated thumbnails, cache files, synchronised accounts, or shared devices, the technical origin of the file may become a decisive defence issue.

Actual, realistic, and purely fictitious depictions

Another central issue is how the material itself must be classified. In legal terms, it may matter whether a depiction shows an actual event, appears realistic, or is purely fictitious. This is not merely a theoretical distinction. It may already affect the existence and scope of criminal liability for certain acts and, in any event, the weight of the allegation.

These borderline questions have become even more important with AI-generated or edited images. In deepfake, inpainting, or other artificially generated-image constellations, the decisive issue is often which legal category applies at all and whether the alleged offence can be made out in the form asserted. Specialist literature also points out that the production of purely fictitious child- or youth-pornographic material for personal use is not punishable under Sections 184b or 184c StGB.

What the defence needs to examine at an early stage

Proceedings under Sections 184b and 184c StGB usually require several layers of analysis at the same time: the content of the file, the age classification, the technical storage situation, the access constellation, the exact statutory act, and the legality of the search, seizure, and forensic review.

Our work in these cases therefore begins with a structured analysis of the investigation file and the digital evidence. The key questions are what was actually seized, how files are said to have reached devices or accounts, what conclusions the authorities are trying to draw from that material, and whether those conclusions are legally, technically, and procedurally sustainable.