The company search: What managing directors and employees need to know now

The company search: What managing directors and employees need to know now

When the public prosecutor's office, police, or tax investigators show up unannounced, an exceptional situation quickly arises within the company. search This can significantly disrupt ongoing business operations and create considerable uncertainty for both managers and employees. Especially in this situation, it is crucial to react calmly, know one's rights, and prevent avoidable mistakes.

A search does not mean that a criminal charge has already been confirmed. It is an investigative measure that can serve, in particular, to locate persons, objects, or information that are relevant to criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, crucial decisions are often made within the first few minutes.

When is it permissible to search a company?

The legal requirements of a search They are governed in particular by Sections 102 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO).

If the investigation is directed against a person to whom the business premises to be searched are attributable under criminal procedure – for example, under certain conditions against a managing partner – a search pursuant to Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure may be considered.

This is distinct from a search of a third party's premises under Section 103 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). Stricter requirements apply in this case. A search for the purpose of finding traces or specific objects is generally only permissible if there are facts from which it can be concluded that the trace or object being sought is located precisely in the premises to be searched.

Generally, a search is ordered by a judge. In cases of imminent danger, the order can also be issued by the public prosecutor's office or its investigating officers in accordance with Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

A search constitutes a significant infringement of fundamental rights and must, in particular, comply with the principle of proportionality. A prerequisite is an initial suspicion based on concrete factual evidence. Mere assumptions are insufficient. However, a sufficient or even urgent suspicion of a crime is not required (see Federal Court of Justice, Decision of June 25, 2025 – StB 27/25, para. 8 with further references).

Particularly strict requirements apply to a search under Section 103 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). In such cases, there must be concrete reasons to believe that the object or trace being sought can be found precisely in the premises to be searched (see Federal Court of Justice (BGH), Decision of June 25, 2025 – StB 27/25).

The search warrant: The most important document at the beginning

If a search warrant is presented, it should be carefully examined as soon as possible and – if possible – copied or photographed.

Of particular importance are the underlying alleged offense, the persons affected, the premises to be searched, and the evidence sought. The warrant limits the investigative measure. The Federal Constitutional Court requires that the alleged offense be described in such a way as to define the outer limits of the coercive measure and to prevent the search from becoming excessive (see Federal Constitutional Court, Decision of February 14, 2008 – 2 BvR 153/04).

How relevant these requirements are, especially in the case of company searches, is demonstrated by a recent decision of the Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court. The court overturned a search warrant issued pursuant to Section 103 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) concerning the business premises of a limited liability company (GmbH) because the underlying allegation of tax evasion had not been described with sufficient specificity (Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court, Decision of January 22, 2025 – 12 Qs 26/24).

The evidence sought must also be sufficiently individualized during a search pursuant to Section 103 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). According to current case law of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), however, a more precise description of the evidence by its type is generally sufficient; a description of each individual item is not required (BGH, Decision of June 25, 2025 – StB 27/25).

Important: Managing directors and employees should not obstruct the investigating officers from carrying out the search. Legal objections can be documented and subsequently pursued through the appropriate legal channels.

What should management do immediately during a search?

The first few minutes are crucial. Ideally, an internal "dawn raid" or search plan already exists.

Management should immediately contact a lawyer experienced in criminal or white-collar crime. Investigating officers are generally not obligated to wait for the lawyer's arrival before conducting the search. However, they may request a brief delay, if reasonable.

Simultaneously, a responsible person should accompany and document the investigative measures. In particular, it should be recorded which rooms are searched, which documents are viewed, and which objects, data carriers, or data sets are seized or copied.

Equally important is clear internal communication. Employees should know who in the company is coordinating the search and whom they can contact with questions. Uncoordinated discussions about the alleged offense – especially via email, messenger, or other electronic communication channels – should be avoided.

Under no circumstances may documents or data be deleted, destroyed, hidden or altered.

Do managing directors and employees have to answer questions?

A clear distinction must be made here between the respective procedural roles.

If a managing director or employee is himself a suspect, he has the right to remain silent. He is not required to incriminate himself and is not obligated to comment on the accusation. Exercising the right to remain silent must not be equated with an admission of guilt.

The legal situation is different for witnesses. According to Section 161a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), there is generally a duty to appear and testify before the public prosecutor's office. Witnesses must generally comply with a police summons pursuant to Section 163 Paragraph 3 of the StPO if the summons is based on an order from the public prosecutor's office. Rights to refuse to testify or provide information, in particular under Sections 52 et seq. of the StPO, remain unaffected.

During an ongoing company search, it should therefore first be clarified in what capacity a person is to be questioned. Spontaneous, detailed explanations or attempts to justify the alleged offense are generally not advisable.

Managing directors should not instruct employees to make specific statements or to remain silent across the board. The legal position of each individual employee must be assessed separately.

Is it permissible to search computers, smartphones, servers, and cloud data?

Today, corporate raids often focus on digital data. Email inboxes, laptops, smartphones, servers, accounting data, and cloud systems can be particularly relevant.

Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure expressly regulates the Review of paper documents and electronic storage media. Under the conditions of Section 110 Paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the examination can also be extended to spatially separate storage media, provided that these can be accessed from the storage medium located in the possession of the person concerned and that otherwise the loss of the data sought is to be feared.

This is particularly sensitive for companies. Their IT systems regularly contain not only potentially relevant information for legal proceedings, but also trade secrets, personal data, communications with lawyers, and numerous other pieces of information unrelated to the investigation.

Unlocking mobile devices can also be relevant during a search. The Higher Regional Court of Bremen has ruled that the forced unlocking of a mobile phone by placing a suspect's finger on the fingerprint sensor can, in principle, be based on Section 81b Paragraph 1 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). This is distinct from the subsequent access to the data stored on the device; the admissibility of such access is governed by the relevant provisions of criminal procedure (Higher Regional Court of Bremen, Decision of January 8, 2025 – 1 ORs 26/24).

Especially when it comes to IT measures, the IT department should not act unilaterally. Passwords, access credentials, or data should not be released spontaneously and without examining the specific legal situation. At the same time, the implementation of lawful investigative measures must not be actively obstructed.

For certain documents and data, special prohibitions on seizure and protective regulations may apply, in particular according to Sections 97 and 160a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). However, not all communication with a lawyer is automatically and under all circumstances protected from access. The specific situation should be reviewed by a lawyer as soon as possible.

Seizure and confiscation: What can be taken?

Items that may be relevant as evidence in an investigation can be seized pursuant to Section 94 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). If they are in a person's possession and are not surrendered voluntarily, they generally require confiscation.

The distinction between voluntary surrender and seizure can have legal implications. Companies should therefore not hastily declare their intention to voluntarily surrender documents or data carriers. Whether or not to object to a seizure is a matter of individual circumstances and should ideally be discussed with a criminal defense attorney.

After the search is completed, it should be carefully checked which documents, objects, data storage devices, or data were seized or confiscated. According to Section 107 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the person affected by the search can, upon request, receive written notification of the reason for the search as well as a list of the items taken into custody or confiscated.

What mistakes should companies avoid during a search?

A search warrant cannot usually be "resolved" by managing directors or employees explaining to investigators in as much detail as possible why, in their view, the accusation is unfounded. Spontaneous statements, on the contrary, can be of considerable importance for the further proceedings.

Particularly problematic are ill-considered statements regarding the alleged offense, voluntary disclosures without legal review, uncoordinated communication, and a lack of documentation of the investigative measures.

Under no circumstances should evidence be hidden, nor should documents or data be deleted or altered. Likewise, investigating officers must not be actively obstructed in carrying out lawful measures.

Therefore, the following practical principle applies: cooperative in external procedures, reserved in providing substantive information, and consistent in protecting one's own rights.

What should be done after the search?

The matter is not over with the departure of the investigating officers. Rather, the legal and organizational review now begins.

Together with specialized lawyers, it is advisable to reconstruct what happened during the search as soon as possible. In particular, the search warrant, seizure and confiscation lists, as well as your own documentation regarding the affected rooms, IT systems, questions, and statements made during the search should be secured.

The next step is to determine against whom the investigation is directed, what specific charges exist, what legal remedies are available, and what further consequences the company may face. Depending on the circumstances, additional issues may arise concerning labor law, data protection law, corporate law, or regulatory law.

Internal and external communication should also be coordinated. In high-profile investigations, premature statements to employees, customers, business partners, or the media can create additional risks.

How can companies prepare for a search?

A search typically comes unannounced. Preparation is therefore an integral part of effective compliance and crisis management.

Companies should establish a clear emergency and search plan. Reception, management, legal department, compliance, IT, and, if applicable, corporate communications should be aware of their respective responsibilities. Contact information for external criminal defense attorneys must be readily available in an emergency.

Employee training can also be beneficial. The goal is not to hinder investigations, but to ensure that lawful measures are carried out in an orderly manner while simultaneously protecting the rights of the company and its employees.

Checklist: What to do during a company search?

1. Remain calm and do not obstruct investigating officers.

2. Request to see official identification and a search warrant.

3. Copy or document the search warrant.

4. Inform management and internal responsible parties immediately.

5. Contact a specialized criminal defense lawyer immediately.

6. Examine the alleged offense, the persons involved, the premises, and the evidence sought.

7. Inform employees about the organizational process without influencing their statements.

8. Do not make any spontaneous statements regarding the alleged offense.

9. Do not delete, alter, or hide any documents or data.

10. Document seizures, confiscations, and essential procedures.

Conclusion: During a company search, preparation and prudent action are crucial.

A search by the public prosecutor's office, police, or tax investigation unit is a significant burden for any company. However, managing directors and employees should not react impulsively.

The key is not to obstruct the investigation, but at the same time not to prematurely relinquish one's own rights. A clear contingency plan, trained staff, and the prompt involvement of a lawyer experienced in criminal law can help to reduce legal and financial risks.

Companies should therefore not wait until the investigating officers are already at reception to address the issue.

Frequently asked questions about company searches

Is the police allowed to search a company without prior notice?

Yes. Searches are generally not announced in advance because otherwise the purpose of the investigation could be jeopardized. In principle, a search requires a judicial warrant. In cases of imminent danger, it can also be ordered by the public prosecutor's office or its investigators, provided the legal requirements are met.

Do investigators have to wait for a lawyer to arrive before conducting the search?

There is generally no right to demand that the investigating authorities wait until a lawyer arrives before conducting a search. However, a request can be made to wait briefly, if reasonable. Regardless, a specialized lawyer should be consulted as early as possible.

Do managing directors and employees have to answer questions?

If the person in question is themselves a suspect, they are not obligated to comment on the charges. Witnesses, however, may have a duty to testify. According to Section 161a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), there is generally a duty to appear and testify before the public prosecutor's office. Witnesses must generally comply with a police summons pursuant to Section 163 Paragraph 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) if it is based on an order from the public prosecutor's office. The rights to refuse to testify or provide information remain unaffected.

Are investigators allowed to search computers, smartphones, and cloud data?

In principle, electronic storage media and the data they contain can also be subject to search and inspection. Under the conditions of Section 110 Paragraph 3 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO), the inspection can also be extended to physically separate storage media. Which data may be searched, secured, or seized in a specific case depends on the scope of the investigative measure and the relevant data protection regulations.

Can communications with lawyers be seized?

Certain documents and data are subject to special prohibitions on seizure and protective regulations, particularly under Sections 97 and 160a of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO). However, not all communication with a lawyer is automatically and under all circumstances protected from access. The specific situation must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

What should management document during a search?

Documentation should include, in particular, the start and end of the operation, the authorities involved, the rooms searched, key events, and any documents, data storage devices, and other items seized or confiscated. Relevant questions and statements made during the search should also be recorded as soon as possible.

By Christian Hermanussen, LL.M.

Lawyer and specialist lawyer for criminal law in Hamburg

Focus: Criminal defense and white-collar crime

Published on September 11, 2026