Building Authority Problems - Purchased a Defective Plot

Forgery of documents basically only occurs if you a) “sign with a false name” b) falsify an existing document Writing something false down and signing it in your own name is not forgery. You can certainly get professional problems or someone might suspect fraud in certain applications – but forgery of documents is something else.

Simply nonsense!

Still off topic, but as long as the OP tries to obtain BauVorlV-compliant building documents from their planner, we can keep discussing a bit.

Simply nonsense!

Could you explain that a bit? What do you consider nonsense in ’s post? Are you, like , of the opinion that a site plan that does not show all existing buildings is a forged document?

Forgery of documents

There is no evidence of this criminal offense so far. That would only be the case if the original excerpt from the cadastral map showed the building, the official printout was altered by image editing, and then submitted again apparently as original without any indication of manipulation.
If, for example, I do not show protected trees in my self-prepared official site plan, that is not forgery of documents, at most fraud, although in my opinion it will not succeed to convince a court of a criminal offense. On the other hand, if the planner or builder removes the trees shown by me from my plans to avoid the felling application, that would be forgery of documents again.

An application is not a document

Yes, it is.

The false document

Without knowing the building documents, it is probably a materially false document. However, if the document itself was not forged (see above), then no forgery of documents has taken place.

wie @11ant der Auffassung, ein Lageplan, der nicht alle vorhandenen Gebäude darstellt, sei eine gefälschte Urkunde?

A plan as part of a building application does not represent an isolated wannabe, but rather the embedding of the wannabe into the present state of affairs. 11ant is neither of the opinion that every detail must be mapped nor that the depicted area should extend to the last corner of the kingdom. But to conceal a building – even if only a remnant – of a scope that in itself requires approval (which I see here as given for the wall, the hill may perhaps be considered natural by customary law) has, in my opinion, already crossed the boundary of audacity. What seems to be inadequately considered in the discussion about the appropriateness of my view is my mention that I consider it reasonable that the authority does not subject this circumstance to any criminal proceedings. Nevertheless, it is indubitably not the case that there is nothing on the property – and what is there significantly includes a building.

... , in my opinion, has already crossed the boundary of chutzpah.

d'accord. The sticking point for this side discussion was your use of the word

Urkundenfälschung

upon which multiple times

Nonsense

Nonsense

were said. Therefore, I am interested in clarifying which of the two was used nonsensically. IMHO the latter, which, due to the lack of explanation, prompted me to ask for the reasons behind the statement so that I can decide whether to stick to my previous opinion or to form a new one.

d'accord.
The stumbling block for this side discussion was your use of the word

upon which several times

was said.
Therefore, I am keen to clarify which of the two was used nonsensically. IMHO the latter, which prompted me, due to the lack of explanation, to ask you to provide the reasons for the statement so that I can decide whether to stick to my previous opinion or to form a new one.

Forgery is a complex criminal offense with various alternative courses of action.
If the application itself constitutes a document, or is part of a document, then of course forgery is generally also possible.
For me, the application is indeed a document. You may google the definition of a document.
By the way, forgery can also coexist as a single or multiple offense with fraud.

Simply nonsense!

Whereas I have to correct my comment here, as it only refers to the first part. There are actually further forms of action and it is too brief.