Drug trafficking: distinguishing possession from a trafficking allegation

The word drug trafficking does not replace the accusation

In everyday language, almost every investigation into a larger quantity of drugs is called a commercial case. It must be legally clear what exactly the Public Prosecution Service is accusing. Is that selling, delivering, transporting, having a presence, importing or a combination thereof? A passenger in a car with drugs faces different questions of involvement than the person who took orders, according to the file. The research title is a starting point, not proof of all these actions at the same time.

Our editorial approach is to break the accusation down into four columns: action, object, period and person. Link each incriminating finding to one of those columns. A photo of a package can say something about its presence, but without further context, little about who transported it or what it was intended for. This makes it clear where the file is concrete and where an argument between two facts still requires explanation. The lawyer then determines what legal significance these differences have.

The substance and the applicable list must be specified

The Opium Act distinguishes between different lists and prohibited behaviour. In addition to lists I and II, since 2025 there has also been list IA with groups of certain new psychoactive substances. A popular name or a description such as powder is therefore insufficient to simply determine the applicable penalty provision. The investigation report must reflect what was actually found and the regulations that applied at the time of the alleged offense. (Opium Act)

Ask which samples have been examined, how they are connected to the seized batch and what exactly the results determine. Is the reported weight net or including packaging? Does a report apply to all packaging or to a sample? These are checkpoints, not automatic reasons to reject every laboratory result. Particularly in the case of composite batches, attention should be paid to whether conclusions about substance and quantity are extended responsibly. Do not unknowingly use a later-introduced prohibition for an old period of suspicion.

Quantity is a clue with context

Quantities play a role in the prosecution policy, including when distinguishing between personal use and other circumstances. The Public Prosecution Service guideline for lists I and IA from 2025 and the separate soft drugs guideline each have their own scope. Such policy frameworks do not declare that possession under a certain weight is permitted. Nor do they form a calculation table with which the judge determines guilt or punishment without assessment. (2025 OM Guideline for List I and IA · soft drugs directive)

A quantity can strengthen a trafficking suspicion, but the reasoning must fit the act charged. Portion packaging, weighing materials, messages and money together can give a different picture than weight alone. The defense can investigate whether those circumstances really belong to the same person, place and period. For example, a found scale does not have the same meaning if it remains unknown where it was located, who used it and whether any relevant traces have been found on it. The question is what the evidence bears, not how many individual words of suspicion can be collected.

Presence of drugs and your own role

A home, vehicle or warehouse can be used by several people. Ownership of the property is not the same as knowledge of everything that is there. Conversely, an investigation does not have to end because drugs were purchased in someone else's name. Power of decision, knowledge and concrete conduct must be investigated within the description of the offense and the possible form of participation alleged. General statements about being an owner or just a visitor cannot replace that assessment.

Create an actual access card for the confidential meeting. Who had keys during the period examined, who stayed where and which agreements have been verifiably recorded? Also mention uncertainties. A reminder that someone was usually absent is different from a diary or record showing absence on the relevant day. Do not approach co-suspects to agree on a joint statement. Your own reconstruction remains useful when it is clear which parts are known independently and which only come from the file.

Communication requires more than a selected sentence

A chat can support a delivery, but the meaning of words and accounts must be substantiated. Who used the device, from what period is the conversation and are previous or subsequent messages available? A cryptic term is not itself a drug order; nor should a clearly elaborated conversation be called meaningless just because a name is missing. The power of digital evidence partly lies in its verifiable connection with other data.

Distinguish between attribution and interpretation. First the question must be asked why an account or message is linked to you. This is followed by what the content can mean in this context. For example, a contact name in someone else's phone does not independently prove who was operating the device at any time. Ask specifically for the relevant context, not for an unlimited printout of all private data. Keep your own original data and discuss securing it with the lawyer; Removal does not strengthen a defense.

Cash, turnover and benefit are different questions

Money in a home may be relevant to an investigation, but an amount found is not automatically proven drug turnover. Even when trafficking is proven, the calculation of any unlawful benefit requires its own substantiation. Turnover, profit, costs and criminal seizure are easily confused in conversations. This can lead to a suspect substantively discussing the incorrect calculation while the principles have not yet been established.

Therefore, work with separate cash flows. For each payment made, note the date, source, amount and available record. Old sales receipts, cash records or bank withdrawals can have meaning if they actually match the funds found. Do not create documents retrospectively as if they existed at the time. If an origin can no longer be reconstructed, this must be stated honestly. A general reference to years of saving is less verifiable than a specific statement with leads that still need to be investigated.

A group does not make contributions interchangeable

In commercial cases, the Public Prosecution Service can accuse complicity or complicity. The personal contribution and the applicable conditions are important for this. Being friends with a main suspect or living at the same address does not automatically answer these questions. At the same time, a contribution may be relevant outside the actual transfer. Anyone who manages orders, arranges transport or facilitates storage may have a different role than someone who was only present by chance.

Our analysis is that a timeline per person makes the discussion sharper than one story about the group. Next to each stated delivery, list what is known about your action and what evidence it is based on. Are telephone locations only indicative, has an observation been made directly or is it a conclusion from other documents? Request testing of the connections. A file can be convincing because of coherence, but that coherence must be explained and should not be assumed because all those involved knew each other.

Fictional example: a bag in a shared car

A fictional student drives to another city with two friends. A bag with drugs is found in the trunk. There is a conversation on his phone about paying back money. The Public Prosecution Service is investigating whether he drove as a courier. The mere statement that the bag was not his only deals with ownership. The next question is what he knew, when the bag got into the car and whether his ride was connected to the party.

A useful preparation describes the journey, access to the car and the original context of the money conversation. The lawyer compares this with observations, research results and the specific accusation. An innocent explanation should not be invented to fit every file detail. Missing memories remain missing. This example shows why both an automatic conviction for driving and an automatic acquittal for someone else's bag are too simplistic. The outcome depends on proof of the alleged involvement.

The investigation can extend beyond the criminal question

In addition to the main case, criminal seizure, pre-trial detention and benefit proceedings may be involved. In the case of a home, an administrative procedure may also be involved. A decision in one procedure does not automatically answer all questions in the other. Anyone who only prepares the criminal hearing may therefore miss a separate letter about home or property. Bring all received documents to the first meeting, even if they come from another agency.

There is no sound standard advice about confessing, remaining silent or accepting an offer without knowledge of the file. As a suspect you have rights to legal assistance and do not have to make an incriminating statement. However, a timely discussed, verifiable research question can be lost if no one knows that relevant material exists. The practical task is to carefully store information within the criminal law guarantees and to have the lawyer specifically assess what should be done with it. (criminal proceedings guarantees)

An evidence matrix for the first file interview

Use the following card to discuss the suspicion. It is an editorial tool and not an evaluation of evidence on behalf of the judge. For each section, list which data is known, which is still missing and who can make a request. An empty box is not an argument for acquittal, but it does make it clear that an important conclusion cannot yet be verified. Keep file documents protected and do not publish personal data of others.

• Accusation: the precise act, substance, period, location and possible form of participation.
• Investigation: sample identification, net quantity, reporting and linking to criminal seizure.
• Access: home, car, storage and appliance users in the relevant period.
• Communications: account attribution, full context, and connection to other data.
• Money: documents of origin, times and distinction between criminal seizure, turnover and benefit.
• Own knowledge: what you observed yourself, what you heard later and what you no longer know.
• Follow-up: concrete research wishes, urgent deadlines and agreed legal assistance.