Criminal offences and ongoing investigations

A criminal complaint, a criminal fine and an entry in a certificate of conduct are legally different things. For naturalisation, what matters is whether criminal proceedings are still ongoing, what decision has been made and whether that decision may be taken into account. Not every previous conviction prevents naturalisation. Equally, a clear certificate of conduct does not automatically mean that all criminal-law issues have been resolved. A reliable assessment therefore begins with the complete documents and the current status of each set of proceedings.

For naturalisation as of right, § 10 paragraph 1 sentence 1 number 5 StAG generally requires that the applicant has not been convicted and sentenced for an unlawful act. It also covers a measure of rehabilitation and prevention ordered because the person lacked criminal responsibility. § 12a StAG sets out exceptions, rules on adding sentences together and requirements for ongoing proceedings. Both provisions must be read together. §§ 10 and 12a StAG

This framework answers two different questions. A conviction in concluded proceedings may be a substantive obstacle. An investigation that is still open, by contrast, generally means that the naturalisation decision is temporarily suspended. This does not turn suspicion into proven guilt. Rather, the law prevents naturalisation from being finalised before the outcome of the criminal proceedings is known.

This overview primarily concerns regular naturalisation under §§ 8 to 10 StAG. Special routes to acquiring citizenship, particularly those connected with Nazi persecution, may have their own criminal-law thresholds. The frequently cited limit of 90 daily units must therefore not be applied to every form of citizenship acquisition without checking.

A person may be a suspect in criminal proceedings, be summoned as a witness or be the victim of a criminal offence themselves. Suspension under § 12a paragraph 3 StAG requires that the applicant for naturalisation is under investigation on suspicion of a criminal offence. Merely participating as a witness does not meet this requirement.

A criminal complaint does not prove that an offence was committed either. However, it can trigger an investigation whose existence must be taken into account in the naturalisation process. If a complaint has only been announced, we first establish whether an investigation is actually under way. What matters is the true status of the proceedings with the police, public prosecution office or court.

For letters mentioning only an appointment or file number, we clarify the type of proceedings and your specific role. The full document will usually indicate the capacity in which the person is being addressed. For your application, we therefore examine complete letters rather than just letterheads or individual extracts.

If the applicant is under investigation, the decision on naturalisation must generally be suspended until the criminal proceedings have concluded. If there is a conviction, it is necessary to wait until it becomes final. The fact that an allegation is likely to result in only a small criminal fine does not replace the final outcome. Only then can it be assessed which rule actually applies.

Suspension concerns the final naturalisation decision. It does not mean that a permanent refusal has already been determined. Once the criminal proceedings have ended, the new position must be assessed. For this purpose, we use the concluding decision and proof of finality where needed. Simply recalling that the police have not been in touch for a long time will often be insufficient evidence.

In lengthy proceedings, it is useful to clarify the reason for the standstill: are criminal proceedings actually still ongoing, is notification of their conclusion merely missing, or is there another obstacle? The details are covered in Ongoing criminal investigations and suspension of the naturalisation decision.

Discontinuance of proceedings is not a conviction. If proceedings are discontinued for lack of sufficient grounds for suspicion, there is no finding by a criminal court that could be taken into account as a sentence. Discontinuance because the matter is minor or after certain conditions have been fulfilled must also be distinguished legally from a conviction. The particular reasons for the decision remain important.

In particular, a payment under § 153a StPO is not a criminal fine expressed in daily units. It may be a condition whose fulfilment leads to the final conclusion of proceedings. Where proceedings have only been provisionally discontinued and conditions remain outstanding, it cannot simply be assumed that the proceedings are over. § 153a StPO

An acquittal is likewise not a conviction. Independent questions about security-related or other grounds for exclusion must, if they arise at all, be examined against their own statutory requirements. The authority must not simply treat a discontinued allegation as an established conviction. Equally, however, it must not disregard all other legally relevant conduct without examination merely because the criminal proceedings have ended.

A criminal fine is imposed by a criminal court and is usually expressed as a number of daily units and an amount per unit. An administrative fine, by contrast, penalises an administrative offence. Damages, repayment demands from an authority and additional contractual charges are different types of claim again. The same everyday word, penalty, can therefore describe very different matters.

A demand to repay social benefits, for example, does not in itself prove fraud. The criminal-law requirements would have to be established for that. Equally, lawfully receiving social benefits is not a criminal offence. The naturalisation process assesses the ability to support yourself independently under its own rules. Receiving a benefit must not be equated with criminal deception.

Since 1 July 2026, the benefit under § 19 SGB II has been called Grundsicherungsgeld; authorities may also use the term Bürgergeld until the end of 2026. This change of name does not alter the need to distinguish social benefits law from criminal law. The official SGB II collection documents the current name and the transitional rule in § 65a paragraph 4. Federal Employment Agency: SGB II

§ 12a paragraph 1 StAG provides that criminal fines of up to and including 90 daily units are generally disregarded. For prison sentences, the limit is three months; in addition, the sentence must have been suspended on probation and remitted after the probation period ended. The length of the sentence alone is therefore not enough.

Educational measures and disciplinary measures under the Youth Courts Act are also generally disregarded. An actual youth custodial sentence, by contrast, is not one of these measures. The precise terminology used in the decision is therefore essential. Community service requirements, short-term youth detention and youth custodial sentences must not be assessed solely by how burdensome they felt to the person concerned.

Two convictions that are minor when considered separately can together exceed the statutory threshold. The law does not look only at the most recent decision. For example, two criminal fines of 60 and 50 daily units that may still be taken into account total 110 daily units. Automatic disregard up to 90 daily units then does not apply.

A lower aggregate sentence imposed by a court may be decisive. However, the naturalisation authority must not create a hypothetical aggregate sentence itself. If the threshold is exceeded only slightly, a case-by-case decision may be possible; that does not in itself create an entitlement to a favourable outcome. The calculation and the exercise of discretion must be kept separate.

Expungement also affects this question. A conviction that may no longer be used generally does not belong in the calculation. Whether that point has already been reached cannot, however, be reliably determined solely from how long ago the offence occurred. The detailed article Multiple convictions, aggregate sentences and slightly exceeding the threshold brings these questions together using examples.

Where a person has been sentenced to a criminal fine, a prison sentence or a youth custodial sentence for an offence motivated by antisemitism, racism or other contempt for human dignity, the usual minor-offence rule may be excluded. § 12a paragraph 1 sentence 2 StAG requires that a corresponding motive was established in the judgment. A low number of daily units then offers no general protection against the consequences for naturalisation.

We examine the complete criminal decision rather than limiting the review to its first page. The reasons for the judgment and, where appropriate, information from the public prosecution office are also relevant. § 32b StAG provides for a corresponding enquiry in relation to certain offences. The dedicated article on antisemitic, racist and other motives showing contempt for human dignity explains the requirements.

Independently of this, conduct may raise questions about whether a declaration of commitment to the constitution is genuine. These are different statutory routes and must not be collapsed into a blanket assessment. Commitment to the constitution and grounds for exclusion explains the requirements that apply.

We take into account that a certificate of conduct does not disclose every register entry. Certain convictions do not appear there, or no longer appear there, even though they may still be relevant to naturalisation. Under § 41 BZRG, nationality authorities are among the bodies entitled to obtain information for certain purposes. Saying that the certificate of conduct contains no entries therefore does not replace an examination of the law governing the register. § 41 BZRG

This must be distinguished from expungement or eligibility for expungement. § 51 BZRG generally prohibits the use of such convictions, and this prohibition cannot simply be circumvented by referring to an older copy of the file. However, the BZRG contains specific rules and exceptions. Where there are multiple entries, calculating the relevant dates can also be complex.

General statements such as everything disappears after five years are therefore often too imprecise. What matters is the type and severity of the decisions, other entries and the applicable statutory periods. The article on certificates of conduct, the Federal Central Criminal Register and expungement also addresses the related disclosure obligations.

Foreign convictions are not automatically ignored, but nor are they treated as equivalent to German judgments without examination. § 12a paragraph 2 StAG requires, among other things, that the act would be punishable in Germany, that the proceedings complied with the rule of law and that the sentence is proportionate. The provision also takes account of hypothetical expungement under German register law.

We keep the criminal-law assessment up to date after your naturalisation application has been submitted. If an investigation begins later or a decision changes on appeal, this may affect how the process continues. Equally, a final discontinuance in the meantime must be taken into account. We therefore update earlier notifications if they no longer reflect the current position. When answering enquiries, a distinction must be drawn between information about the existence of proceedings and a detailed response to the allegation. Where criminal defence is taking place at the same time, we coordinate communications with the defence. Truthfully reporting the status of proceedings is different from accepting all the allegations without examination.

We record each decision and each pending case separately in a complete overview. Useful documents include the judgment or penal order, certification that it is final, discontinuance decisions and, for suspended sentences, the remission order. Proof of payment can show the enforcement status, but does not replace the decision on the type and severity of the sentence.

For your application, we clarify four questions:

• Is the person a suspect, a convicted person, a witness or a victim?

• Have the proceedings concluded, and which decision is final?

• What sentence or measure was actually ordered?

• Are there further decisions or any particular issues under register law?

The answers determine the specific next step. If only notification of the conclusion is missing, there is no need to wait for an expungement period. For a short suspended sentence, however, the outstanding remission of the sentence may be decisive. If a more substantial conviction may still be used, simply paying the fine or serving the sentence does not remove the obstacle. And where the threshold is exceeded slightly, the possibility of a reasoned discretionary decision must be examined. These different situations explain why there is no general waiting period “after a criminal case”.

Even in a family application, convictions are assessed individually. The sentences of two spouses are not added together. However, if the joint naturalisation of a family member depends on the other person's naturalisation, a delay affecting that person can affect completion of the applications together. It must then be examined whether the family member without convictions has an independent basis for naturalisation. This is a question of the route to citizenship, not a transfer of criminal responsibility.