Lawyer-Client Privilege vs. Evidentiary Seizure of Company Files in Fraud Investigation

The appellate court addressed the appeal against an order compelling a lawyer to surrender the business files of a company under criminal investigation for fraud, where the lawyer claimed professional secrecy under § 114 Abs. 3 StPO. The court reasoned that while lawyer files are generally protected from seizure, this protection is voided if the accused uses the lawyer to improperly secure incriminating material to evade official access, which was strongly suggested by the fact that the files were delivered to the lawyer one day before a scheduled search of the company. Furthermore, since the documents belonged to the company being investigated, and not the lawyer's personal files related to his mandate, the lawyer could not rely on professional secrecy as the company offered no independent grounds to refuse the seizure, provided a justified initial suspicion of criminal activity existed and the documents could serve as evidence.