Limit at 10 grams: justice may not confiscate cannabis for personal use

class=”sc-29f61514-0 icZBHN”>

According to the statements of the Federal Supreme Court, there is no legal requirement for confiscation and destruction of what is known as a seditious act. Buying and possessing small amounts of cannabis is legal. The fact that there was a certain probability that a criminal offense had previously been committed by a third party is not sufficient to prove the offense in question.

In the specific case, in 2019, a man was checked by the border guard at St. Margrethen station. He had 2.7 grams of marijuana and 0.6 grams of hashish with him. The Rheintal court acquitted him of the charges of violating the Narcotics Act. However, it ordered the destruction of the cannabis. The district court upheld this decision.

As the Federal Supreme Court explains, only the consumption of cannabis is considered a criminal offense and punishable by a fine. It follows that only the product that was actually consumed at the time of the crime can be confiscated. If the perpetrator only has a small amount of the narcotic with him, this is not allowed.

preparation is not punishable

The Federal Supreme Court reminds that it is not a criminal offense under the Narcotics Act to prepare small amounts of cannabis for personal use. According to case law, preparatory acts without penalty include, in particular, acquisition and possession.

The highest Swiss court has also considered whether the actions of a third party can serve as grounds for confiscation – for example, the cultivation, importation, shipment or sale of cannabis products.

It is true that the legal acquisition or possession of small amounts of money often precede the criminal acts of others. But this is not certain. It would therefore be untenable to make the general assumption that there would always be a criminal offense. According to the Federal Supreme Court, mere probability is not sufficient for the assumption of a crime.

disproportionate effort

A corresponding proof would only be possible with further research. However, in the opinion of the Federal Supreme Court, the police cannot check on the spot whether the unpunished possession was preceded by an unlawful act by a third party.

It is hardly in line with the will of the legislator if the police should conduct further investigations into unpunished behavior and report it to the competent authority with a view to seizure. Such an effort would be disproportionate. (SDA)

Source:Blick