The decision concerning former Audi CEO Rupert Stadler in the Dieselgate complex shows how a breach of technical environmental requirements may lead to criminal consequences through economic criminal law and management responsibility.
The case concerned software functions in certain V6 and V8 diesel engines that made emissions appear lower under test conditions. Stadler was not found to have developed the software or ordered its installation. His liability arose from failing to stop sales in time and to ensure the necessary disclosure after learning of a possible manipulation.
Why is the moment of knowledge decisive?
According to the Regional Court Munich II, by July 2016 at the latest Stadler could have recognised that emissions data for certain models might have been manipulated. Sales nevertheless continued until early 2018.
During the proceedings, Stadler admitted that he had regarded harm to purchasers as possible and had accepted that risk. The court combined section 13 of the German Criminal Code on commission by omission with the fraud offence in section 263.
The decision shows that management liability cannot be determined merely by asking what a board member knew. The date and reliability of the information, the power to intervene and the internal decision-making path are also material. Their interaction marks the sensitive boundary between criminal liability and a corporate governance failure.
The judgment and the corporate sanction
On 27 June 2023, the Regional Court Munich II convicted Stadler of fraud by omission in connection with 17,177 vehicle sales. It imposed a suspended prison sentence of one year and nine months and a payment condition of EUR 1.1 million.
By order of 16 December 2025 – 1 StR 270/24 – the German Federal Court of Justice dismissed the appeals, making the convictions final. The Court did not, however, publish detailed substantive reasoning.
Separately from the individuals’ criminal liability, Audi AG received an administrative fine of EUR 800 million under sections 30 and 130 of the German Administrative Offences Act. The case therefore distinguishes the company’s organisational responsibility from the personal responsibility of individuals.
Could Turkish law reach the same result?
The Turkish Criminal Code has no general provision corresponding to section 13 of the German Criminal Code for all offences. It remains debated whether deception under Article 157 of the Turkish Criminal Code may, in defined circumstances, include silence by a person who is legally required to disclose information.
A comparable case would therefore not automatically produce the same result under Turkish law. It would be necessary to examine whether liability follows merely from corporate office or from concrete knowledge, authority and conduct. The link between technical information inside the company and the subsequent management decision is particularly critical.
German and Turkish law contain structural differences that may direct similar facts into different doctrinal paths. A reliable assessment requires closer examination of the sector, the manager’s assigned responsibilities, the flow of information and the available means of intervention.
Conclusion
The Stadler decision is not a conventional environmental-crime judgment. It nevertheless demonstrates that technical manipulation of environmental requirements may acquire criminal significance through fraud, management responsibility and corporate compliance.
For companies, the central message concerns the response structure. If it is not determined in advance who must act, when and how after a violation becomes known, a technical problem may develop into a personal criminal-liability risk. Identifying the individual to whom that risk may be attributed requires a separate analysis of the organisation and its decision-making structure.
Legal sources
BGH, Order of 16 December 2025 – 1 StR 270/24
German Criminal Code, section 13 – Commission by omission
German Criminal Code, section 263 – Fraud
German Administrative Offences Act, section 30 – Fines against legal persons
German Administrative Offences Act, section 130 – Breach of supervisory duties
Statement concerning the administrative fine against Audi AG