Illegal Cross-Border Waste Shipments

The allegation starts before the border

A lorry leaves Germany carrying a load described as recycling material. At the border or during an inspection in the destination country, the load is classified differently because of its composition, quantity or intended treatment. Investigators then examine whether it was waste, which country it was going to and what treatment was intended. They also assess whether a prohibition or the required consent procedure was avoided.

Section 326(2) StGB covers waste within Section 326(1) moved contrary to a prohibition or without the required authorisation into, out of or through the territory covered by the Act. Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 now provides the Union framework, supplemented in Germany by the AbfVerbrG. Depending on the waste, the risk and the consequences, Sections 18a and 18b AbfVerbrG may also create relevant offences. The facts must therefore be reconstructed against the rules applicable at the time.

Documents to preserve for the first review

waste analyses, waste codes, classifications and records distinguishing waste from a product or by-product
notification documents, consents, accompanying or shipment information and DIWASS data in full
contracts, freight documents, weighing records, routes, recipient details and evidence of the actual destination
permits, conditions, authority correspondence and changes to the treatment route with their dates
do not alter transport data, emails or shipment documents retrospectively or make spontaneous factual explanations to investigators

Waste or material for recovery

The cross-border regime is built on the concept of waste. A waste code is an important indicator but does not answer every question. The intended purpose, the condition of the material, the holder’s intention to discard it and the actual use at the receiving facility may all matter. Describing material as a product or recycling input is not enough if the factual process points in another direction.

For Section 326(2) StGB, the dangerous-waste characteristics in Section 326(1) must also be met. These include certain toxic, carcinogenic, explosive or self-igniting wastes and wastes which, by type, condition or quantity, are capable of causing lasting contamination or other harmful alteration of environmental media or endangering animals or plants. Cross-border movement alone does not make a load dangerous waste for criminal-law purposes.

Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 distinguishes, depending on the waste, destination and intended treatment, between prior written notification and consent and general information duties. For notified shipments, the competent authorities in the countries concerned, including transit countries, must be involved before the shipment begins. Certain green-listed non-hazardous wastes for recovery benefit from simplified information requirements. They still depend on correct classification and a permitted route.

Since 21 May 2026, the administrative procedures are generally handled electronically through DIWASS. Transitional rules under Article 85 of Regulation (EU) 2024/1157 may apply to procedures initiated before that date. A criminal assessment must therefore establish when the shipment was planned and started, which notification or information existed and which version of the EU regime governed the facts.

Section 326(2) StGB addresses two basic situations: the shipment may breach a substantive prohibition, or it may take place without the required consent or authorisation. The analysis depends on the waste, destination, treatment purpose, route and intended recipient. An existing consent does not automatically cover a different waste stream, quantity or facility.

Incomplete or inaccurate information may change the legal status of the shipment. The case must still distinguish a material circumvention from a purely documentary or formal defect. The defence should compare the forms with samples, operating records, contracts and the transport that actually occurred.

The actual treatment route

The legal assessment does not end at the border. The intended and actual treatment at the receiving facility remain important. A shipment for recovery requires a genuine recovery route; material described as recycling may be assessed differently if it was destined for disposal from the outset or arrived at an unsuitable facility.

The reconstruction may need to combine recipient checks, facility authorisation, contracts, acceptance records, onward transport and treatment steps. A change in destination or treatment can be significant under administrative and criminal law. It does not by itself show which person knew of, ordered or accepted the deviation.

Import, export and transit through Germany

Section 326(2) StGB covers shipments into, out of or through the territory covered by the Act. Import, export and transit through Germany can therefore raise different roles and evidentiary issues. For an exporter, classification, recipient and consent are central; for a carrier, the route, load and accompanying documents may be decisive. A broker or producer is not criminally liable merely because of that title.

Customs, environmental and investigative authorities may rely on the same transport and accompanying documents while applying different legal regimes. The reason for the objection should therefore be identified precisely: customs clearance, waste classification or compliance with the shipment rules.

Intent, negligence and personal responsibility

Intent must cover the waste classification, the concrete shipment and the relevant breach of shipment law. If a person did not know, and did not accept the possibility, that the classification, procedure or destination was unlawful, the subjective element does not follow automatically. In a company, the analysis must identify who prepared, approved and checked the relevant information.

Section 326(5) StGB also covers negligent shipments. The focus then shifts to duties of care, the selection and supervision of service providers and plausibility checks on analyses and recipient details. In serious illegal shipments, Sections 18a and 18b AbfVerbrG may provide independent offences and further qualifications. Responsibility cannot be assigned mechanically to management, dispatch or the driver without examining the actual contribution.

After a customs inspection, seizure or search

After an inspection, preserve the load, samples, documents, communications and statements of the people involved. The company should distinguish the authority’s legal assessment from established transport facts and reconstruct the sequence internally in a disciplined way. Where several countries are involved, return, containment or lawful further treatment must be coordinated with the competent authorities.

The concrete shipment must be compared with the applicable shipment rule and the treatment route that was actually intended and used. Only then can the file show whether a particular person knew, or should have recognised, a classification error or missing procedure. General waste handling is addressed on the dedicated waste-criminal-law page.