Account blocked on suspicion of money laundering: what now? First clarify who blocked it, because the duration and the remedies depend on that. The bank may not execute a reported payment until the authorities consent or until the end of the third working day (Werktag) after the report was sent (§ 46 (1) Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG)). The Financial Intelligence Unit (Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen, FIU) can prohibit dispositions for a maximum of one month (§ 40 (4) GwG). A longer blockade generally requires an asset freezing order (Arrest) or a seizure (Beschlagnahme) under criminal procedure law.
This article covers the special case of a suspicion of money laundering. Other reasons for blocking, such as garnishment or payment default, are described in the overview on account blocking.
Who Blocked the Account? Six Routes That Must Be Treated Differently
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Who acts | Legal basis | Scope | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bank after a suspicious activity report (Verdachtsmeldung) | § 46 GwG | the reported transaction | until consent, otherwise until the end of the third working day |
| FIU by immediate measure | § 40 GwG | transaction, account, securities account, safe deposit box | one month at most, shorter after referral to the prosecuting authorities |
| Public prosecutor’s office or court | §§ 111b, 111e Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO) | an item or assets up to the amount set | no fixed maximum period |
| Bank, because it cannot meet its due diligence obligations | § 10 (9) GwG (obligations under (1) nos. 1 to 4), independent of a suspicious activity report | no transaction, termination of the business relationship | no deadline |
| Bank on its own decision | contract | varies, often the entire account | to be examined in each case |
| EU sanctions regulation | directly applicable EU law | assets of listed persons | as long as the listing exists |
Why the Bank Does Not Pay: Suspicious Activity Report, Waiting Period, Duty of Silence
The bank must report to the FIU without delay if facts indicate that an asset derives from a possible predicate offence of money laundering or is connected with terrorist financing. The amount involved does not matter (§ 43 (1) GwG).
Typical triggers are unusually large incoming payments, cash deposits, international transfers, payments from third parties, amounts passed on quickly and payouts from crypto exchanges. Lawful transactions such as the sale of a house, an inheritance or a gift can attract attention just as much if they deviate from the previous account activity. The Federal Constitutional Court has made clear that the requirements for the reporting obligation cannot be transferred to the initial suspicion required under criminal procedure law (order of 31 January 2020, 2 BvR 2992/14, still on the former version of § 261 Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB)).
Calculating the Period under § 46 GwG Correctly
The reported transaction may be executed at the earliest once the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office has consented, or once the third working day after the day the report was sent has passed without a prohibition. The day of sending itself does not count, and Saturday does not count as a working day for the calculation (§ 46 (1) sentence 2 GwG). If the bank reports on a Thursday, the third working day is the following Tuesday. The same applies to the five-working-day period in § 40 (4) no. 2 GwG.
In the case before the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Oberlandesgericht) (judgment of 25 February 2025, 10 U 18/24), the bank reported on Friday, 21 July 2023. The third working day was Wednesday, 26 July, so the earliest permissible date for the payout was 27 July 2023.
According to its wording, the provision concerns the reported transaction, not the entire account. The Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Landgericht) emphasised this in its order of 22 January 2024 (2-01 T 26/23) and ordered a bank to bear the costs of urgent proceedings after it had blocked an account for weeks without the period or an FIU measure justifying this. By way of exception, a transaction may be executed immediately if a postponement is not possible or could obstruct criminal prosecution; the report must then be made afterwards (§ 46 (2) GwG).
Why the Bank Stays Silent
The bank may not inform you or third parties of a planned or filed suspicious activity report or of investigation proceedings based on it (§ 47 (1) GwG). Evasive answers such as “internal review” therefore say little.
There is a limited option directly with the FIU: while its analysis is ongoing, it can provide you with information if this does not impair the purpose of the analysis (§ 49 (1) GwG). Once it has passed the matter to the prosecuting authority, it may no longer provide information until those proceedings are concluded (§ 49 (3) GwG).
The FIU Freeze under § 40 GwG: Account, Securities Account, Safe Deposit Box
Where there are indications of money laundering, an offence under § 18 (1) Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz, AWG) or terrorist financing, the FIU can go considerably further than the waiting period. It can prohibit the transaction, prohibit banks from executing dispositions from accounts and securities accounts as well as other financial transactions, and have access to the safe deposit box blocked (§ 40 (1) GwG). A prior hearing of the customer does not usually take place: the Administrative Court of Cologne (Verwaltungsgericht Köln) considers it excluded under § 28 (3) Administrative Procedure Act (Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz, VwVfG) and assumes a low threshold for intervention (order of 10 December 2021, 14 L 2149/21).
§ 40 (4) GwG names three points in time at which the measure ends:
- At the latest: at the end of one month after the order (no. 1).
- After referral: at the end of the fifth working day after the matter has been referred to the prosecuting authority, Saturday not counting (no. 2).
- Earlier: at an earlier point in time that the FIU sets from the outset (no. 3).
Whichever occurs first is decisive; the month is the upper limit in every case (Administrative Court of Cologne, order of 10 December 2021, 14 L 2149/21, para. 26). If the requirements cease to apply, the FIU lifts the measure (§ 40 (3) GwG).
Legal Protection against the Freeze
The first step is to clarify which measure is involved. The bank’s waiting period under § 46 GwG is not an administrative act; here the route is a civil law claim against the bank. The FIU freeze under § 40 GwG, by contrast, is an administrative act addressed to the bank; the account holder is another aggrieved party (anderer Beschwerter). Only here are an objection (Widerspruch) and the administrative court available.
The bank and any other affected person can lodge an objection against the FIU freeze (§ 40 (6) GwG). The deadline is one month after the decision was notified to the affected person (§ 70 (1) Code of Administrative Court Procedure (Verwaltungsgerichtsordnung, VwGO)). If there is no proper notice of legal remedies, the deadline does not start to run; in that case a maximum of one year applies (§ 58 VwGO). Because the bank may not inform the customer about the report (§ 47 (1) GwG) and the freeze is usually ordered only against the bank, affected persons often learn of it only through the bank.
The objection does not suspend the freeze. The administrative court has jurisdiction over an urgent application; in practice, the Administrative Court of Cologne decides (orders of 17 May 2019, 14 L 1066/19, and of 10 December 2021, 14 L 2149/21). If the freeze ends before a decision is made, the affected person can generally still have it established that it was unlawful (Fortsetzungsfeststellung), provided he or she has a legitimate interest in doing so (§ 113 (1) sentence 4 VwGO). Because the freeze lasts one month at most, a lawyer should be engaged early.
Release for Living Expenses: the Application under § 40 (5) GwG
On application by the affected person or association of persons, the FIU can release assets that serve the necessary living expenses of the person or his or her family, pension or maintenance payments, or comparable purposes. The application is addressed to the FIU, not to the bank, and applies to the freezing of accounts, securities accounts and safe deposit boxes under (1) sentence 2. The decision lies within the authority’s discretion.
A short application with supporting documents makes sense: mandatory payments with amounts and due dates, the tenancy agreement, maintenance orders and the balance required.
What You Can Do Now: Seven Steps
This order makes sense:
- Secure documents. Save account statements, transaction lists and letters from the bank while you still have access. Delete nothing, including chats or contracts.
- Record the timing. Note since when what has stopped working.
- Assess the situation before you make statements. Is the bank only asking for proof of origin for a clear payment, or are there signs of an investigation, such as a summons?
- Organise your evidence. Purchase agreement, certificate of inheritance (Erbschein) or will, deed of gift, loan agreement, tax assessments, salary statements and, for crypto assets, the transaction history. The bank may request information on the origin of the assets as part of its due diligence obligations (§ 10 (1) no. 5, § 15 GwG). If it cannot meet the general due diligence obligations under § 10 (1) nos. 1 to 4 GwG, it may not carry out any transaction and must terminate the business relationship (§ 10 (9) GwG). Silence about the origin of the money can make the situation worse: in the case before the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, the customer had not provided her bank with proof of the property sale, whereupon the bank filed a report and blocked the account (order of 22 January 2024, 2-01 T 26/23). Conversely, statements made to the bank can end up in a report and in an investigation file. You should therefore obtain legal advice beforehand, including on which proofs of origin exist, which ones you should submit and in what form.
- Make a written demand to the bank with a deadline. State the account, the amount and urgent payments, demand release and ask whether an official order stands in the way. After the deadline has expired, execution of authorised payment orders can be demanded unless a legal provision stands in the way (§ 675o (2) German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB)).
- Secure your payment transactions. Redirect income to another account and review standing orders and direct debits.
- Have urgent legal protection examined. If there is no legal basis at all and your livelihood or business is at risk, a preliminary injunction (einstweilige Verfügung) against the bank may be considered; in the case before the Regional Court of Frankfurt, the Local Court (Amtsgericht) had issued one.
Example: the fictitious Mara sells a flat, 280,000 euros are credited, and the bank blocks the account. She submits the purchase agreement and the notarial deed and demands release with a deadline. If no prohibition is issued and no other legal provision stands in the way, she can then demand execution of her orders.
Three Typical Mistakes
First: passing money on for others or “transferring it back”. Anyone who passes on money under pressure from a principal can expose themselves to suspicion. Reckless conduct can also be punishable (§ 261 (6) StGB).
Second: simply expecting the bank to pay your legal fees. In the judgment mentioned (10 U 18/24), the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main denied the customer reimbursement of her pre-trial legal fees because the bank was not yet in default when the lawyer was instructed, and granted the bank a few additional days to consider the matter. A clear deadline is therefore also important for the question of costs.
Third: counting on damages. Whoever files a report is released from liability unless the report was intentionally or grossly negligently untrue (§ 48 (1) GwG). The situation may be different if the bank seriously disregards the law after the report, as the order of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main shows.
When the Public Prosecutor Takes Over: Asset Freezing Order and Confiscation
As a rule, money remains tied up for longer than the periods of the Money Laundering Act only through a measure under criminal procedure law. In principle it is ordered by the court, and in exigent circumstances (Gefahr im Verzug) also by the public prosecutor’s office (§ 111j (1) StPO). The latter must then apply for judicial confirmation within one week, except in the case of the seizure of movable property (§ 111j (2) StPO).
- Seizure: Seizure (Beschlagnahme, § 111b StPO) secures the confiscation of a specific item.
- Asset freezing order: The asset freezing order (Vermögensarrest, § 111e StPO) secures the confiscation of the equivalent value and can therefore also cover other assets of the affected person. In account balances it is enforced by garnishment (§ 111f StPO).
The freezing order must state the amount secured and set a sum of money by whose deposit enforcement can be averted (§ 111e (4) StPO). If the public prosecutor’s office issued the order in exigent circumstances, the affected person can file an application for a court decision (Antrag auf gerichtliche Entscheidung, § 111j (2) sentence 3 StPO); against a court order the remedy is a complaint (Beschwerde) under § 304 StPO, and against the manner of enforcement an application under § 111k (3) StPO.
A mere report is not automatically sufficient for a search: according to the order of the Federal Constitutional Court mentioned above, the initial suspicion must also relate to the money deriving from a predicate offence. If an item was secured on suspicion of a catalogue offence, which includes money laundering under § 261 (1) and (2) StGB, it is also to be confiscated independently, even without prosecution or conviction of the affected person, if it derives from an unlawful act (§ 76a (4) StGB).
If funds derive from undeclared income, tax issues arise as well, and advice is advisable before making any statements on them. A binding ruling (verbindliche Auskunft) under § 89 (2) Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung, AO) does not help here, because it only concerns precisely defined facts that have not yet been realised; it is only an option for transactions that are still being planned.
The Bank Then Terminates the Account: the Basic Payment Account as a Fallback
After a suspicious activity report, banks frequently terminate the business relationship. Whether this is permissible and with what notice period is covered in the article Bank closes account without reason. In a money laundering case, four points matter:
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Point | Rule |
|---|---|
| Entitlement | Consumers legally resident in the EU are entitled to a basic payment account (Basiskonto), with an offer no later than ten business days after the application (§ 31 Payment Accounts Act (Zahlungskontengesetz, ZKG)) |
| Old account | Refusal because of an existing account is not permitted if that account has been terminated or its closure has been announced (§ 35 (1) ZKG) |
| Limit | Refusal is possible if the bank cannot meet the due diligence obligations under § 10 (1) nos. 1 to 3 GwG or § 25j Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz, KWG), or if giving reasons would violate § 47 GwG (§ 36 (1) no. 3 ZKG). The reasons may then also remain undisclosed (§ 34 (3) ZKG) |
| Legal protection | Application for administrative proceedings at BaFin in the event of refusal or a missed deadline (§ 48 ZKG), inadmissible if a court or the conciliation body (Schlichtungsstelle) is dealing with the same grounds |
The bank can terminate an existing basic payment account only on the grounds set out in § 42 ZKG. Termination without notice is possible, for example, if the holder intentionally uses it for purposes prohibited by law (§ 42 (4) no. 1 ZKG). Such a termination can rule out a new account being opened at the same bank for one year (§ 36 (1) no. 2 ZKG).
Business accounts are not covered by the consumer entitlement to a basic payment account.
Prevention: Documents and Time Buffers
A suspicious activity report cannot be ruled out with certainty, but its consequences can be mitigated:
- Larger payments: Explain larger payments in advance and have documents ready, for example in the case of a property sale, an inheritance or a gift.
- Time buffer: For payments tied to deadlines, allow a reserve of a few working days.
- Documents: Keep documents in good order, including for cash (see the article on the cash limit in Germany).
- Separation: Separate private and business payments and do not let any funds for third parties run through your own account.
- Emergencies: Think about emergencies, see the emergency plan for asset protection.
Where Precaution Ends
Documenting is permitted, concealing is not. Anyone who hides or disguises the origin of money from an unlawful act, or transfers such money with the intention of frustrating confiscation, commits a criminal offence (§ 261 (1) and (2) StGB). Anyone who removes assets when enforcement is imminent risks criminal liability under § 288 StGB, and transfers can also be contestable under §§ 3, 4 Avoidance Act (Anfechtungsgesetz, AnfG) within four or ten years. For openly documented arrangements see Asset Protection.
Distinction: Sanctions Listing and Other Forms of Access
A freeze due to a sanctions listing follows its own rules: freezing under EU sanctions regulations does not end with the periods of the Money Laundering Act, and legal protection is different as well. On the consequences of violations see the article on confiscation of assets for sanctions violations.
A distinction must also be made from account inquiries by authorities without any blocking effect (see account check) and from foreign emergency law (see account freezes in Canada).
What Is Set to Change: the AMLR and the Planned Revision
The Act implementing Directive (EU) 2024/1260 on asset recovery and confiscation of 22 October 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I No. 320) changes nothing in the rules described here: in the Code of Criminal Procedure it concerns only § 111p, and the Money Laundering Act and the Payment Accounts Act remain unaffected.
From 10 July 2027, the EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2024/1624) applies directly, with rules on suspicious activity reporting (Art. 69), on waiting three working days after the report has been transmitted (Art. 71) and on the prohibition of disclosure (Art. 73). The Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (EU) 2024/1640 limits suspension by the financial intelligence unit in principle to ten working days for transactions and five for accounts (Art. 24); longer periods are possible under certain conditions.
Two German projects have not yet been adopted: the draft bill of the Federal Ministry of Finance of 28 October 2026 (§ 51: a maximum of ten working days for transactions and five for accounts, exclusion of liability for the FIU, entry into force on 10 July 2027) and the government bill BT-Drs. 21/8282, which seeks to extend the predicate offences in § 40 (1) GwG. Until an amendment enters into force, § 40 GwG applies in its current version.
Conclusion
In a suspected money laundering case, what matters is who blocked the account. The waiting period under § 46 GwG is short, the FIU freeze ends after one month at the latest, and anything longer generally requires a judicial measure. Affected persons should secure their documents, obtain advice before making statements and make a demand to the bank with a deadline.
Frequently Asked Questions
How long may the bank block my account on suspicion of money laundering?
On the basis of the suspicious activity report alone, it may hold the reported transaction until the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office consents, otherwise until the end of the third working day after the report was sent (§ 46 (1) GwG). Saturdays do not count. A longer blockade requires a different basis, such as § 40 GwG, an order under criminal procedure law or § 10 (9) GwG.
How long does an FIU freeze last?
It ends one month after the order at the latest, and also at the end of the fifth working day after referral to the prosecuting authority or at an earlier point in time set by the FIU (§ 40 (4) GwG).
Does the bank have to tell me whether it has filed a suspicious activity report?
No, § 47 (1) GwG prohibits it from doing so. The FIU can provide information under the conditions of § 49 GwG, but initially no longer after the matter has been passed to the prosecuting authority. In investigation proceedings, the route is inspection of the files under § 147 StPO.
Can I access money for rent and living expenses during the block?
With an FIU freeze this is possible, but not guaranteed. On application, the FIU can release funds for necessary living expenses, pension or maintenance payments (§ 40 (5) GwG). If the bank blocks the account without an official order, a preliminary injunction may be considered; in the case of an asset freezing order, the route is via the public prosecutor’s office or the court.
Does a suspicious activity report mean that I am under investigation?
No. The report passes the bank’s assessment on to the FIU and is not a criminal complaint. If the FIU refers the matter, the public prosecutor’s office examines whether there is an initial suspicion. In addition, the bank can also file a criminal complaint itself (§ 43 (1) GwG).
As of: 5 November 2026.
Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, with a focus on international inheritance law, tax law and asset protection in Munich, advise account holders and asset holders on account blocks due to suspected money laundering, from clarifying the legal basis of the block through communication with the bank and the FIU to the urgent court application. Dr. Fiala has published extensively on questions of emigration and asset protection. Contact the firm without obligation to have your individual situation discussed in an initial consultation.
