Preparatory acts for drug production

First choose the correct preparatory offence

The Opium Act has various regulations for preparatory and facilitating actions. Article 10a relates to a certain framework around list I, while after the introduction of list IA there is also a separate regulation for this. Article 11a concerns a different context surrounding, among other things, professional or commercial hemp activities. An article that treats all these situations as one general preparation prohibition does not provide sufficient legal precision. Ask which article and action are mentioned in your case. (Opium Act)

Our analysis starts with three fields: intended offense, own action and required mental state. Only when these are clear can the evidence be assessed. The lack of final production does not automatically answer the preparation question. Conversely, a suspicion about what someone else wanted to do later does not automatically prove your criminal contribution. The defense must be able to test how the Public Prosecution Service links your behavior to a specific prohibited purpose and which legal conditions apply.

The new list IA makes old schedules incomplete

Since 2025, the Opium Act also includes list IA for groups of certain new psychoactive substances. The 2025 Public Prosecution Service Directive covers List I and IA, but also distinguishes relevant legal frameworks. An older explanation that only contrasts hard drugs and soft drugs may therefore miss important differences. The date of the offense is also relevant: a ban introduced later may not be used unnoticed as an earlier criminal basis. (2025 OM guideline addresses List I and IA)

Therefore, ask what the suspected substance or group is and how the file determines the applicable regulations. During preparation, the research cannot yet concern an end product found; then the substantiation of the intended activity deserves extra attention. Where necessary, have a technical or chemical assessment assessed by an expert. The lawyer connects this with the legal provision. This article does not describe production methods: the relevant question is what destination and involvement can be proven from existing data, not how a process is made feasible.

Delivery, storage, transport and advice are not interchangeable

An accusation may relate to the provision of resources, information, space or other actions referred to in the law. Your own role must be stated specifically. A warehouse worker handling a package, an owner renting out a space, and a person organizing a prohibited activity have different de facto positions. This does not mean that only the organizer can be punished. It means that the conditions must be applied to the actual contribution.

Create an action list with date, assignment and source document. Was the task defined, what information did you receive and what did you do yourself? An ordinary job description can provide context, but cannot explain every file detail. If there were any special instructions, these should also be discussed. The lawyer can assess whether the evidence supports criminal preparation, complicity, co-perpetration or another variant. Simply saying that you produced nothing leaves possible other actions undiscussed; merely pointing to someone else's final destination skips one's own involvement.

Legally usable does not automatically mean a legal destination

Many objects and services have normal legal uses. This may be important, but does not rule out a punishable destination in a specific case. Conversely, general usability for illegal production does not make every delivery punishable. It concerns the destination and required knowledge or intention as formulated in the applicable article. That assessment can be supported by quantity, combination, communication and circumstances, without one factor always being decisive.

Ask what specific information the Public Prosecution Service believes proves the prohibited destination. An invoice with a neutral description cannot automatically refute that information. A legitimate order can be relevant if it actually belongs to the delivery and period. Save original documents and have missing context specifically investigated. Do not come up with alternative uses to make a batch of goods appear innocent afterwards. The defense benefits more from a verifiable business reality than from an abstract list of all possible applications of an object.

What was known at the time of trading?

The required knowledge, intention or reason to suspect differs per legal variant. A general suspicion that the sector has risks is not automatically the same question as concrete knowledge of a prohibited destination. At the same time, clear signals can be relevant in a transaction. The research must reconstruct the knowledge at the right time. Knowing afterwards that a lab has been discovered does not automatically prove what a supplier knew months earlier.

Create a knowledge timeline next to the delivery list. When did you receive which instruction, warning or explanation? Who made that announcement and has it been saved? Also include questions you asked yourself and answers you received. One's own uncertainty should not be converted into a firm denial or confession. The lawyer can assess which facts affect the applicable standard. A neutral business relationship does not automatically rule out conscious facilitation; a later suspicion does not make that relationship retroactively punishable.

Professional cultivation requires your own assessment

The Public Prosecution Service's explanation of hemp cultivation also focuses on facilitating professional illegal cultivation. The soft drugs directive provides a context for prosecution. These sources do not automatically make every landlord, electrician or shopkeeper punishable. The concrete conditions and knowledge must be investigated. Even a small number of plants cannot simply be used as a general exemption if the actual design and activity require a different assessment. (OM explanation about hemp cultivation · soft drugs directive)

Ask what professional circumstances are stated and what own delivery or service is linked to them. A nursery report may describe the facility without establishing the knowledge of each previous service provider. The person-oriented connection requires additional evidence. Record appointments and access times for the lawyer. It is not about how cultivation can be technically supported, but about what action was actually performed in this case and why, according to the Public Prosecution Service, it falls within the criminal preparation or facilitation framework.

A network is not the same as proven joint execution

Contacts between people can support an investigation into collaboration. But an address book, invoice or visit does not automatically prove criminal cooperation with the required intent. The participation rules in the Criminal Code require your own assessment. With a large file it must be clear which data is attributed to which person and period. A general description of the group cannot fill personal evidence gaps without explanation. (participation rules in the Criminal Code)

Create a role card in which factual contributions and stated conclusions are placed side by side. A payment can concern a normal order or a prohibited contribution; the context must be revealed. A statement from someone else can be incriminating and require questioning. A technical trace can demonstrate presence without explaining the entire intention. The lawyer can formulate specific research wishes. The aim is not to deny every connection, but to test the correct legal meaning of the actually established connections.

Maintain business records without creating a new story

Orders, quotations, delivery notes and communications can clarify the actual course of events. Keep originals and note which pieces are missing. An overview prepared later can be useful, as long as it is clear that it was created now. Backdating or amending a document as if it read differently at the time can cause new criminal law problems. A customer statement should also reflect the real situation and should not be provoked to confirm a desired destination.

Specific rights and powers apply to a request for information or a search. Discuss this with the lawyer instead of treating everything as voluntary consent or everything as prohibited research. The criminal procedure rules provide the framework. Customer data and any protected communications require appropriate handling. Do not copy entire files without permission or delete anything to influence research. A targeted inventory of relevant administration helps determine more quickly which questions are still open and how material can be made legally available. (criminal procedure rules)

Fictional example: an ordinary delivery with unusual instructions

A fictitious supplier sells goods that have many legal uses. A customer requests special delivery arrangements and sends messages that, according to the Public Prosecution Service, indicate a prohibited destination. The supplier only relies on the fact that the goods are freely available. That addresses their general nature, but not automatically the concrete transaction and science. The Public Prosecution Service must also do more than point out possible use for drug production.

The lawyer compares order, communication, delivery and the applicable preparation article. It is investigated what the supplier actually understood and what conclusion can be drawn from the messages. The example does not provide a list of suspicious clues that always lead to guilt. It makes clear why both a neutral product name and someone else's serious end goal can be insufficient without investigating the connection. The correct assessment keeps general suitability, concrete destination and personal knowledge apart.

A destination card per delivery or operation

Use the card to investigate a specific accusation and not to come up with a legal explanation for each object afterwards. Provide the source of each agreement and make uncertainties visible. A dangerous or closed location may not be entered for personal evidence collection. The lawyer can use this inventory to determine which technical, factual and legal questions still need to be answered.

• Box: applicable article, list, fact date and intended prohibited offense.
• Action: own delivery, service, storage, information or other concrete contribution.
• Object: material actually found or delivered and its documentation.
• Destination: concrete data that, according to the Public Prosecution Service, proves the prohibited purpose.
• Knowledge: information and signals before and during trading, with a reliable source.
• Collaboration: stated role, contact and connection with other people and periods.
• Follow-up: original administration, targeted research requirements and appropriate legal assistance.