The manipulation allegation
What could not technically have happened did not happen.
In modern till systems, several mutually independent barriers stand between a receipt and its subsequent alteration. Each works on its own. Anyone wanting to suppress a single item would have to overcome all of them at once. Whether that was possible at all in the case at hand is not a question of credibility — it is a technical finding, and technical findings can be evidenced.
Why this changes the direction of proof
An allegation of manipulation sets the business a task that normally cannot be solved: to show that something did not happen. The technical proof turns this around. If it is established that the barriers were effective during the audit period, the question is no longer whether somebody altered something — it is how it could have happened at all. That question has to be answered by whoever makes the allegation.
What the proof must be measured against
The provisions in this table are German law. Most European legal orders know the same principle — set out verbatim and by country in the register of legal bases.
| Point | Legal basis | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| The technical duty | § 146a Abs. 1 Sätze 1 bis 3 AO | Every business transaction individually, completely, correctly, in good time and in order — protected by a security module, storage medium and uniform digital interface. |
| The principle | § 158 Abs. 1 AO | Proper accounting shall be taken as the basis of taxation. |
| The threshold | § 158 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 AO | Only in so far as there is cause to object to substantive accuracy. |
| Favourable circumstances too | § 88 Abs. 1 Satz 2 AO | The authority must also take into account circumstances favourable to the parties. |
| Before the court | § 96 Abs. 1 Satz 1 FGO | Decision from the overall result of the proceedings — a technical proof is part of it. |
| The Czech Republic for comparison | § 92 Abs. 5 lit. c daňového řádu | There the statute says it expressly: the authority proves the facts that disprove the completeness of the records. |
Separate first, then defend
Much of what looks like an alteration is the designed behaviour of the system: gaps in number sequences, transactions appearing twice, time differences between till and security module, a concentration of cancellations. As long as it is not settled which anomalies are real, the ones that resolve themselves are defended too — and credibility is lost for the ones that matter.
What we do not do
We neither represent you nor advise you on the law. In criminal or administrative fine proceedings both belong in the hands of defence counsel, and it is counsel who decides the defence strategy, not us. We establish what was technically possible and what was not, and document it in a form that holds up in proceedings. Including where the result speaks against the client.
What we contribute
We establish which safeguards were effective in the case at hand and document it so that it can be followed. The report is built so that a court-appointed expert can verify it without special software — and we propose such a review ourselves.
The legal provisions cited here are given for information and do not replace legal advice.