A short letter, two months’ notice, no explanation: when a bank terminates an account without giving a reason, many customers are caught unprepared, because salary, pension, rent, insurance premiums, taxes and, for business owners, the entire payment flow run through the current account (Girokonto). This is known as “de-banking”. This article explains when a German bank may terminate with notice or without notice, why savings banks (Sparkassen) are subject to stricter rules than private banks, what role anti-money laundering law plays, when there is a right to a basic payment account (Basiskonto) and how private individuals and business owners can prepare.
The article deliberately deals with termination by the bank itself. Blocking an account, for example through an attachment order, a court order or insolvency proceedings, is a different process with different legal consequences. An overview is provided in our article Account block: what those affected can do, supplemented by the German-language article Was tun, wenn die Bank das Konto sperrt.
Why de-banking is an underestimated risk
Discussions about state access to assets usually focus on taxes, wealth levies, sanctions or the digital euro. What is often overlooked is that, in practice, access to payment services depends less on the authorities than on the individual bank. In our firm’s experience, customers lose their account far more often through a decision of their bank than through an official measure. Banks are integrated into the controls under anti-money laundering and sanctions law, and they also end customer relationships for commercial reasons.
There is also a structural gap: German law does not require a private bank to give reasons for the ordinary termination of a current account. The only statutory fallback for consumers is the basic payment account. There is no comparable safety net for companies.
Ordinary termination: notice yes, reasons no
Under German civil law, the current account agreement is a framework contract for payment services (Zahlungsdiensterahmenvertrag). Termination by the bank is governed by Section 675h(2) BGB (German Civil Code): the bank may only terminate an open-ended contract if a right of termination has been agreed, and it must observe a notice period of at least two months. No fee may be charged for the termination (Section 675h(4) BGB).
For private banks and cooperative banks, the contractual right of termination follows from No. 19(1) of the General Business Conditions of the banks (AGB-Banken). Under this clause, the bank may terminate the entire business relationship or individual business relations by giving reasonable notice. When setting the notice period, it must take the customer’s legitimate interests into account; for framework contracts for payment services, such as the current account or the card agreement, and for securities accounts, the notice period is at least two months.
What the Federal Court of Justice has ruled
The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has repeatedly confirmed the freedom of private banks to terminate:
- In its judgment of 15 January 2013 (XI ZR 22/12), it held that an ordinary termination under No. 19(1) AGB-Banken does not require the interests of the bank and the customer to be weighed against each other. Under private law, the general principle of equality does not create a duty to treat all customers equally. The claimant was a company that distributed books and magazines.
- In its judgment of 15 October 2024 (XI ZR 50/23), it upheld the termination of a current account, credit card and securities account by a cooperative bank against one of its own members. The clause is valid even without the requirement of an objective reason, and Section 675h(2) BGB does not create a duty to give reasons. Membership in the cooperative does not confer a right to the continuation of the account.
For customers of a private bank, this means: an ordinary termination with sufficient notice is generally effective, even if no reasons are given. Limits arise only from the principle of good faith (Section 242 BGB), for example in the case of an abusive termination, a termination at an inopportune time or a notice period that is too short in the individual case. According to case law, these limits apply only in exceptional cases. One such exceptional case: on 6 May 2026, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (17 U 94/25) considered the termination of a current account by a cooperative bank to be contrary to good faith; the account agreement continues to exist.
A frequent trigger: refusing consent to new terms
Since the Federal Court of Justice declared the so-called deemed consent clause (Zustimmungsfiktion) in banks’ terms and conditions invalid in its judgment of 27 April 2021 (XI ZR 26/20), banks obtain their customers’ express consent to price and contract changes. Anyone who does not respond or who refuses frequently receives an ordinary termination, which is generally permissible.
Savings banks: termination only with an objective reason
The legal position is different for savings banks. Sparkassen are institutions under public law and, as part of public services of general interest, are directly bound by fundamental rights. As early as its judgment of 11 March 2003 (XI ZR 403/01), the Federal Court of Justice held that a savings bank violates the prohibition of arbitrariness under Article 3(1) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) if it terminates a current account agreement without an objective reason. Such a termination is void under Section 134 BGB.
In its judgment of 5 May 2015 (XI ZR 214/14), the Federal Court of Justice declared the termination clause then contained in No. 26(1) of the savings banks’ General Business Conditions (AGB-Sparkassen) non-transparent and invalid towards consumers, because it did not make clear that the savings bank may only terminate for an objective reason. The current version (May 2025) takes this into account: the savings bank may only terminate with notice “if there is an objective reason”, must take appropriate account of the customer’s legitimate interests, may not terminate at an inopportune time and must observe a notice period of at least two months for the current account agreement.
What counts as an objective reason depends on the individual case; commercial reasons, a breakdown of the customer relationship or concerns under anti-money laundering law may suffice. A termination by a savings bank without any recognisable reason, however, can be challenged.
Some federal states also oblige their savings banks to maintain current accounts. In Bavaria, under Section 5(2) of the Bavarian Savings Banks Regulation (Bayerische Sparkassenordnung), the savings bank maintains a credit-only current account on application for natural persons from its business district; it may only refuse if maintaining the account is unreasonable for it for good cause (Section 5(3)). Section 5 of the Savings Banks Act of North Rhine-Westphalia also provides for such an obligation to contract.
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Criterion | Private bank / cooperative bank | Savings bank |
|---|---|---|
| Legal basis | Section 675h(2) BGB, No. 19(1) AGB-Banken | Section 675h(2) BGB, No. 26(1) AGB-Sparkassen |
| Minimum notice for current account | two months | two months |
| Reason required? | no, limit only Section 242 BGB | yes, objective reason (Art. 3(1) Basic Law) |
| Reasons stated in the letter? | not required by law | not expressly required by law, but a reason must exist |
| Leading decisions | BGH XI ZR 22/12, XI ZR 50/23 | BGH XI ZR 403/01, XI ZR 214/14 |
Extraordinary termination for good cause
In addition to ordinary termination, banks and savings banks may terminate the business relationship without notice if there is good cause that makes continuation unreasonable for them (No. 19(3) AGB-Banken, No. 26(2) AGB-Sparkassen, Section 314 BGB). The terms and conditions cite as examples in particular incorrect information about the customer’s financial circumstances, a significant deterioration of the customer’s financial position and the jeopardising of collateral. If the cause is a breach of contract, a warning or a period to remedy the breach is generally required first.
Unlike in the case of an ordinary termination, the bank must be able to demonstrate the good cause in the event of a dispute. A termination without notice is therefore easier to challenge legally, but its consequences are considerably harsher: the customer has no transition period to switch payment arrangements, and when the business relationship is dissolved, outstanding balances and credit lines become due immediately (see, for example, No. 26(4) AGB-Sparkassen).
Anti-money laundering law: why the bank often stays silent
A considerable share of the terminations that customers perceive as “without reason” has a background in anti-money laundering law. Banks must identify their customers, verify the plausibility of the origin of assets and monitor the business relationship on an ongoing basis. If a bank cannot fulfil these due diligence obligations, it may not continue the business relationship under Section 10(9) of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG) and must end it, by termination if necessary. Conversely, the customer is obliged under Section 11(6) GwG to provide the necessary information and documents and to report changes without delay.
If the bank has filed a suspicious transaction report with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU, Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen) or intends to do so, it may not inform the customer of this under Section 47(1) GwG. The same applies to any investigation initiated as a result. The customer can request data protection information under Art. 15 GDPR, but information on suspicious transaction reports is excluded (Art. 23 GDPR in conjunction with Sections 33, 34 BDSG, the Federal Data Protection Act). Under Section 46(1) GwG, a reported transaction may in principle only be carried out once the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office has consented or the third working day after the report was sent has passed without a prohibition.
A termination without reasons therefore neither allows the conclusion that a suspicious transaction report has been filed nor rules one out. Typical triggers include unexplained source of funds for larger incoming payments, missing documents on beneficial owners of companies, extensive cash deposits, payment flows involving high-risk countries or crypto assets, and incomplete answers to the bank’s queries.
Financial sanctions must be distinguished from this: since Regulation (EU) 2024/886, payment service providers offering instant credit transfers in euro check at least once per calendar day whether customers are on an EU sanctions list. A listing leads to the freezing of funds and follows its own rules; see our article Sanctions and their effects.
The basic payment account under the Payment Accounts Act
The most important safety net for consumers is the basic payment account under Sections 30 et seq. of the German Payment Accounts Act (Zahlungskontengesetz, ZKG). Under Section 31(1) ZKG, every institution that offers payment accounts to consumers must conclude a basic account agreement with an eligible person. Every consumer legally resident in the European Union is eligible, expressly including persons without a fixed address. The institution must offer the agreement without delay, at the latest within ten business days of receiving the complete application (Section 31(2) ZKG).
The basic payment account is a full payment account without credit facilities: cash deposits and withdrawals, credit transfers including standing orders, direct debits and card payments must be possible (Section 38 ZKG). The fee must be reasonable (Section 41(2) ZKG). A bank may not impose the additional costs of the basic account solely on its holders (BGH, judgment of 30 June 2020, XI ZR 119/19).
When the bank may refuse the basic payment account
The grounds for refusal are exhaustively regulated (Section 34(1) ZKG):
- The applicant already holds a usable payment account in Germany (Section 35 ZKG). This ground expressly does not apply if the existing account has been terminated. Anyone who has received a termination can therefore not be referred back to the old account.
- The applicant was convicted in the last three years of an intentional criminal offence to the detriment of the institution, its employees or customers (Section 36(1) no. 1 ZKG).
- The bank cannot fulfil its due diligence obligations under the Money Laundering Act or would violate the prohibition on disclosing information by giving reasons (Section 36(1) no. 3 ZKG).
- In the last year, the institution lawfully terminated a previous basic account of the same customer because he intentionally used it for unlawful purposes (Section 36(1) no. 2 in conjunction with Section 42(4) no. 1 ZKG).
- In the last year, the institution lawfully terminated a previous basic account of the same customer because of arrears in account fees (Section 37 in conjunction with Section 42(3) no. 2 ZKG).
If the bank refuses, it must do so in text form within ten business days, state the reasons (unless anti-money laundering law prevents this) and refer the customer to the administrative procedure at BaFin and to consumer arbitration (Section 34(2) to (4) ZKG).
The administrative procedure at BaFin
If an institution rejects the application, does not decide in time or does not open the account in time, the consumer can apply for an administrative procedure at the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) under Section 48(1) ZKG. Under Section 49 ZKG, BaFin can order the institution to offer a basic account agreement and to open the account, unless the institution substantiates a permissible ground for refusal. The application is inadmissible as long as civil proceedings or arbitration proceedings concerning the same matter are pending (Section 48(2) ZKG). One should therefore decide on one route.
The bank can only terminate the basic payment account itself on the grounds listed in Section 42 ZKG, for example after 24 months without any payment transaction or in the case of intentional use for unlawful purposes, and only in text form with reasons, insofar as anti-money laundering law permits this (Section 43 ZKG).
For emigrants, one restriction is important: the right to a basic payment account requires legal residence in the EU. What matters is not the place of residence in the sense of a registered address; the law expressly includes persons without a fixed address. Anyone who moves permanently to a third country may, however, lose the right. If residence in the EU continues, for example through a second home, it depends on the individual case. Anyone using an account abroad as an alternative should know the reporting obligations explained in our article CRS reporting obligations for foreign accounts.
Business accounts: no safety net
For business owners, the situation is considerably less favourable. The basic payment account is only available to consumers; a GmbH, a partnership or a sole trader with a business account cannot rely on it. In addition, Section 675e(4) BGB permits deviations from, among other provisions, Section 675h BGB towards non-consumers. Whether the two-month notice period applies to a business account therefore depends on the specific contract and the terms incorporated into it. No. 19(1) AGB-Banken provides for the minimum notice period of two months for framework contracts for payment services and securities accounts without distinguishing between consumers and entrepreneurs; this is also how the Federal Court of Justice reproduces the wording of the clause (judgment of 15 October 2024, XI ZR 50/23, para. 2). Deviating special conditions for corporate customers should nevertheless be checked.
Wages, advance VAT payments, social security contributions, card terminals and credit lines all depend on the business account. If the entire business relationship is terminated, loans also become due. Opening a new business account often takes longer, because the new bank carries out a comprehensive review under the Money Laundering Act, including the beneficial owners. For savings bank customers, a termination requires an objective reason here as well; the 2003 decision did not concern a consumer.
Consequences for direct debits and solvency
Once the account ends, direct debits can no longer be honoured. The consequences fall not on the bank but on the customer:
- Insurance: If a follow-up premium remains unpaid, the insurer may be released from its obligation to pay benefits after a reminder setting a deadline (Section 38 VVG, Insurance Contract Act). Health, occupational disability and buildings insurance in particular should be switched early.
- Taxes and charges: SEPA mandates granted to the tax office, the municipality or the health insurance fund come to nothing. Late payment of taxes triggers late payment surcharges (Section 240 AO, Fiscal Code).
- Contractual partners: Returned direct debits trigger fees and reminders and can jeopardise rental, leasing or energy contracts.
For consumers, the account switching service under Sections 20 et seq. ZKG helps: on application, the old and new bank assist with transferring standing orders and informing payment partners. This requires the old account to still be running. The notice period should therefore be used immediately.
What those affected should do after a termination
- Check the termination: Which institution? Ordinary or without notice? Has the two-month notice period been observed? The entire business relationship or only the current account?
- Ask for the reason in writing: This is particularly useful with savings banks, because an objective reason must exist.
- Apply for a new account immediately: If that fails, apply for a basic payment account and request any refusal in text form.
- Switch payment arrangements: Standing orders, direct debit mandates and incoming payments.
- Weigh legal steps: The arbitration body of the respective banking group, the BaFin procedure for the basic payment account or an action for a declaration that the account agreement continues to exist. Realistic starting points exist mainly with savings banks and terminations without notice.
Prevention: second bank, documents, communication
The most effective prevention is organisational, not legal, and at the same time protects against technical disruptions, account blocks or the insolvency of an institution.
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Measure | Purpose |
|---|---|
| Second current account at an unaffiliated bank, with its own card | Ability to pay is maintained if the main account is terminated or blocked |
| Cash reserve for a few weeks to a few months of living expenses | Bridging the gap if both accounts are temporarily unusable |
| Documentation of the source of funds (tax assessments, purchase agreements, proof of inheritance, account overview) | Answering the bank’s queries under the Money Laundering Act quickly and completely |
| Up-to-date documents on companies and beneficial owners | Passing reviews of business accounts and opening new accounts quickly |
| List of all direct debit mandates and standing orders | Switching within the notice period |
| Announcing and documenting larger or unusual payments in advance | Avoiding misunderstandings and grounds for suspicion |
| Answering the bank’s letters on changes to its terms | Avoiding termination for lack of consent |
The second bank should not belong to an affiliated group of institutions and should be used regularly so that it does not itself terminate the account for inactivity. And anyone who answers queries about the source of funds promptly, completely and in writing removes one of the most common reasons for termination. How these building blocks fit into comprehensive planning is described in the German-language article Notfallplan für den Vermögensschutz. On the role of cash after the new EU cash payment limit, see the German-language article Bargeldobergrenze in Deutschland.
The limit of what is permissible is clear: prevention means diversification and preparation with full tax and reporting compliance. Accounts held through nominees, concealing beneficial owners or undeclared foreign accounts do not create security, but considerable criminal and tax risks. A foreign account can make sense as a second banking connection, but it does not protect against access by the German tax authorities, as the German-language article Auslandskonto und Lastenausgleich shows.
A look beyond Germany
De-banking is also being discussed internationally. In the United Kingdom, the closure of the accounts of politician Nigel Farage by the private bank Coutts in 2023 sparked a debate; the investigation report by the law firm Travers Smith published by NatWest found the closure to be lawful, with the main reason being a lack of commercial viability, but stated that the customer had not been given adequate reasons. In addition, confidential customer data had reached the BBC. In the United States, Executive Order 14331 of 7 August 2025 instructs the banking regulators in Sec. 4(a) to remove the criterion of reputational risk from their guidance. Neither changes the legal position in Germany.
Conclusion
A private bank in Germany may terminate a current account with at least two months’ notice without giving a reason; the Federal Court of Justice most recently confirmed this in 2024. Savings banks, by contrast, need an objective reason because they are bound by fundamental rights. Many terminations without reasons are based on obligations under anti-money laundering law that the bank may not talk about. Consumers resident in the EU have an enforceable right to a basic payment account, through BaFin if necessary; business owners have no such safety net. The best protection is a prepared second banking connection, a documented source of funds and careful communication with the bank.
Frequently asked questions
Does the bank have to give reasons for terminating a current account?
A private bank or cooperative bank does not have to give reasons for an ordinary termination; Section 675h(2) BGB only requires a notice period of at least two months. Savings banks may only terminate for an objective reason. For the basic payment account, the termination must state the reason, unless anti-money laundering law prevents this (Section 43(2) ZKG).
Can I challenge the termination?
The prospects of success against an ordinary termination by a private bank with proper notice are usually slim. Better starting points are terminations by savings banks without an objective reason, terminations without notice without a sound reason and notice periods that are too short.
After a termination, am I entitled to a basic payment account at the same bank?
In principle yes, if you are a consumer legally resident in the EU. The ground for refusal “account already held” does not apply if that account has been terminated. However, the bank can refuse on the grounds listed in Sections 36 and 37 ZKG, in particular if it cannot fulfil its obligations under the Money Laundering Act.
What applies if my business account is terminated?
Companies have no right to a basic payment account, and the two-month notice period of Section 675h BGB can be deviated from towards non-consumers. The specific contractual terms are therefore decisive. Business owners should maintain a second business banking connection before any termination.
Does a termination without reasons mean that a suspicious transaction report has been filed?
No, such a conclusion is not permissible. Banks also terminate for commercial reasons or because consent to new terms was refused. If the bank has filed a suspicious transaction report, however, it may not disclose this under Section 47(1) GwG. Anyone with cause for concern should not make enquiries at the bank themselves, but seek legal advice.
Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, which focuses on international inheritance law, tax law and asset protection in Munich, advise private individuals and business owners on the termination of banking relationships, from reviewing the termination and the right to a basic payment account to the precautionary structuring of their own banking relationships. Dr. Fiala has published extensively on emigration and asset protection. Feel free to contact the firm without obligation to discuss your individual situation in an initial consultation.
