In February 2022, Canada did something that many considered impossible in a Western state governed by the rule of law: on the basis of an emergency order, banks froze the accounts of participants in and supporters of the trucker protest, without a court order, without a prior hearing and without a hardship rule. Two Canadian federal courts have declared the measures unlawful, and the government has applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal. This article traces the case and asks which comparable levers exist in Germany, what wealthy individuals can legally prepare and where the limits lie. How an account block works under German banking law in the individual case and how to have it lifted is covered in our article Account block: what those affected can do.
The starting point: Freedom Convoy and Emergencies Act
At the end of January 2022, truck drivers and supporters protesting against coronavirus measures arrived in Ottawa; at the same time, border crossings were blocked. The protest was largely financed through donations.
On 14 February 2022, the Canadian federal government declared a “public order emergency” (SOR/2022-20) for the first time since the Emergencies Act of 1988 came into force. On 15 February, two orders took effect: the Emergency Measures Regulations (SOR/2022-21), which among other things prohibited assemblies at certain locations, and the Emergency Economic Measures Order (SOR/2022-22, EEMO for short). On 21 February, the House of Commons confirmed the emergency by 185 votes to 151, and on 23 February the government revoked it. The federal emergency thus lasted nine days.
How the Emergency Economic Measures Order worked
The EEMO did not rely on seizure by an authority; instead it imposed obligations on private financial institutions, in four steps:
- Who was affected: “Designated persons” were all persons and entities that directly or indirectly participated in an activity prohibited under the Emergency Measures Regulations (s. 1 EEMO). This did not require an individual decision by an authority or a court.
- What the institutions had to do: Banks, credit unions, insurers, trust and securities companies and, expressly, crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers had to cease dealing in any property of such persons, stop facilitating any transactions and stop providing financial services (s. 2 and s. 3 EEMO). The word “freeze” does not appear in the text, but the effect was the same.
- Flow of data: The institutions had to disclose without delay to the federal police RCMP or the domestic intelligence service CSIS which property they attributed to such persons (s. 5 EEMO). Conversely, authorities were permitted to pass information to the institutions (s. 6 EEMO). In practice, the RCMP transmitted lists of names to the banks.
- Immunity from liability: Civil proceedings against an institution that complied with the order were excluded (s. 7 EEMO).
Neither a court order nor a prior hearing nor a structured procedure for unfreezing was provided for.
Course and duration of the freezes
The account freezes began shortly after 15 February 2022, as soon as the RCMP had handed the first lists to the banks. According to the report of the commission of inquiry, around 280 accounts or financial products with a combined value of about 8 million Canadian dollars were frozen; elsewhere the report refers to around 290 accounts. According to press reports, the Department of Finance cited around 210 accounts with 7.8 million dollars. The figures vary because accounts were already being released while the count was still under way. Retirement savings accounts were also affected.
The inquiry report recorded three details:
- Joint accounts were also frozen, so that spouses and family members were affected as well.
- There was no humanitarian exemption for food, medication or rent.
- Financial institutions froze at least 23 accounts on the basis of their own assessment.
On 21 February 2022, the RCMP informed the banks that nobody was any longer listed as a “designated person”. In the end, it transmitted a list of 57 persons or entities with a total of 240 accounts that were no longer involved in the protest. Unfreezing was left to the banks themselves. The account freezes thus essentially lasted around six days.
GoFundMe and GiveSendGo: the platforms came first
Part of the sanctions did not run through the emergency at all. GoFundMe suspended the fundraising campaign, which had raised around 10 million Canadian dollars by the beginning of February 2022, on 2 February and removed it on 4 February, citing its terms of service, that is on a contractual basis and two weeks before the emergency. Most of the money was returned to the donors.
The organisers switched to GiveSendGo. According to press reports (CBC, NPR), a court in Ontario had the funds collected there frozen on 10 February 2022; this route therefore did go through a judge. Shortly afterwards, GiveSendGo was hacked and the data of tens of thousands of donors were published.
Only the banking route was therefore based on the emergency; alongside it, platforms acted under contract law, the state acted directly (police, towing, driver’s licence suspensions in Ontario), and courts acted as well.
What the courts have decided
Federal Court, 23 January 2024 (2024 FC 42)
On applications by civil liberties organisations and individuals, Justice Richard Mosley of the Federal Court ruled on 23 January 2024 that the declaration of the emergency was “unreasonable” and not covered by the statutory powers. In addition, the Emergency Measures Regulations infringed freedom of expression (s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms) and the EEMO infringed the protection against unreasonable search and seizure (s. 8), without being justified under s. 1 of the Charter.
Federal Court of Appeal, 16 January 2026 (2026 FCA 6)
On 16 January 2026, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed all of the government’s appeals: according to the official summary, there were insufficient grounds for assuming a national emergency, and the EEMO had been implemented ad hoc, without a judicial order and without a specific procedure; the disclosure of customer data to the authorities was therefore an unreasonable search.
Supreme Court of Canada: status as of October 2026
On 17 March 2026, the Attorney General of Canada (file number 42261) and the Canadian Frontline Nurses (42262) applied to the Supreme Court of Canada for leave to appeal. According to the register, the materials were submitted to the judges on 14 September 2026; at the editorial deadline of 21 October 2026, no decision had been recorded in either of the two proceedings. The finding of unlawfulness is therefore not yet final.
Commission of inquiry and criminal proceedings
The statutory commission of inquiry under Justice Paul Rouleau found in February 2023, “with reluctance”, that the threshold had been met, but criticised the account freezes as too broadly applied and lacking humanitarian exemptions. Its 56 recommendations include a procedure for unfreezing. According to press reports (CBC, Global News, Globe and Mail), the organisers Tamara Lich and Chris Barber were convicted of “mischief” under ordinary criminal law on 3 April 2025, Barber additionally of counselling others to disobey a court order. On 7 October 2025, each received a “conditional sentence” of 18 months; the prosecution had sought seven and eight years respectively.
The lasting consequence: crowdfunding under anti-money laundering supervision
The emergency order expired long ago. One of its rules, however, became permanent: under the amending regulations SOR/2022-76, in force since 5 April 2022, crowdfunding platforms and payment service providers, insofar as they process electronic funds transfers, are subject to anti-money laundering law in Canada. They must register with the financial intelligence agency FINTRAC, identify customers, keep records and report suspicious transactions. According to the official legislation portal, the Emergencies Act itself has remained unchanged since June 2023 (as of 30 September 2026); the reform recommendations of the Rouleau Commission have not been implemented.
Assessment: From the perspective of an asset holder, three points are remarkable. First, the freezes took effect within a day, while legal protection came only after 23 months (Federal Court) and 47 months (Federal Court of Appeal) respectively, as a retrospective declaration. Second, spreading funds across several domestic banks did not help, because all institutions were subject to the same order. Third, what remained permanently was not a limitation of powers, but an expansion of financial surveillance.
Are there comparable levers in Germany and the EU?
German law does not know an emergency law in this form, like the Emergencies Act, that allows the government to oblige banks by order to freeze the accounts of certain groups of persons. For a state of tension or defence, there are separate safeguarding acts (Sicherstellungsgesetze), whose reform the federal government adopted in the form of key points on 1 July 2026; whether this will lead to interventions in payment transactions is open. But in Germany, too, banks are integrated into state control tasks as “obliged entities” and do not only stop accounts on the basis of a judicial order. The most important levers:
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Instrument | Legal basis | Who decides | Judge in advance? | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standstill after a suspicious transaction report | Section 46(1) GwG | Bank (reports), FIU/public prosecutor | no | until consent, otherwise expiry of the third working day |
| Immediate measure by the FIU | Section 40(1), (4) GwG | Financial Intelligence Unit (Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen) | no | at most one month, shorter if referred to law enforcement |
| Asset freeze in criminal proceedings | Sections 111e, 111j StPO | Court, prosecutor if there is danger in delay | in principle yes | until lifted |
| EU financial sanctions | Art. 29 TEU, Art. 215 TFEU, Section 18 AWG | Council of the EU | no | until delisting |
| Moratorium against the bank | Section 46 KWG | BaFin | no | temporary |
| “Bank holiday” | Section 46g KWG | Federal government by statutory order | no | no maximum duration in the law |
| Ordinary termination of the account | Section 675h BGB, terms and conditions | Bank | no | notice period of two months |
Anti-money laundering law: the everyday lever
If a bank files a suspicious transaction report, it may in principle only carry out the transaction concerned once the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office consents or the third working day after the report was sent has passed (Section 46(1) GwG, German Money Laundering Act). The FIU can also prohibit dispositions over accounts or securities accounts and block access to safe deposit boxes (Section 40(1) GwG), for at most one month (Section 40(4) GwG); an objection has no suspensive effect. Unlike in Canada, this is linked to a specific suspicion in the individual case and is tightly time-limited, but here too no judge decides in advance.
Sanctions: the strongest lever
EU financial sanctions come closest to the Canadian mechanism. The Council decides on the listing, the regulation applies directly in all member states, and banks must freeze funds from the time of publication in the Official Journal. A criminal conviction is not required, and there is no prior hearing. Since Regulation (EU) 2024/886 on instant payments, payment service providers offering instant credit transfers in euro have been required since 9 January 2025 to screen their customers against the EU sanctions lists immediately after new sanctions enter into force and at least once per calendar day. That listings do not only affect oligarchs and companies is shown by at least two German nationals who have been on the list since May 2025 (Council Decision (CFSP) 2025/966) and by the listing of a Swiss journalist in December 2025 (Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/2568). Legal protection is available through an action for annulment before the General Court of the EU, for which the time limit is two months and ten days. How sanctions already affect companies and suspected cases is described in our earlier article Sanctions and their effects.
Moratoria and bank holiday
If a bank runs into difficulties, BaFin can issue a prohibition on sales and payments and close the institution to customer business (Section 46(1) sentence 2 nos. 4 and 5 KWG, German Banking Act). If the federal government fears serious dangers to the economy as a whole, it can, after consulting the Bundesbank, grant a payment moratorium by statutory order and temporarily close banks and stock exchanges (Section 46g KWG). These instruments target institutions, not customers; for the account holder, they nevertheless have the effect of a freeze. What capital controls in Cyprus and Greece looked like in practice is covered in the German-language article Notfallplan Vermögensschutz Ausland.
Assessment: The risk that an emergency order on the Canadian model could hit entire groups of persons in Germany is not legally foreshadowed. In practice, individual measures are more common: suspicious transaction reports with a standstill period, terminations by the bank and, for a small group of persons, sanctions. What they all have in common is that the bank acts first and legal protection only takes effect afterwards.
What you can legally do
No arrangement protects against a lawful measure. Against its consequences, however, that is inability to pay for days or weeks, a good deal can be prepared.
Spreading across institutions
A second banking connection at an unaffiliated institution, ideally in a different deposit protection group (private bank, savings bank, cooperative bank), with its own card and its own online access, helps against the most common cases: an individual freeze by one bank, a termination, technical outages and the insolvency of an institution. Deposits of up to 100,000 euros per customer and institution are protected by law; reimbursement is to be made within seven working days (Section 8(1), Section 14(3) EinSiG, German Deposit Guarantee Act). On the limits of deposit protection, see Deposit protection at banks and insurance companies: a bankruptcy protection?. Against an order that covers all domestic institutions, however, spreading within Germany does not help.
Spreading across jurisdictions
An account in another state is not automatically subject to the same order. This is legal as long as it is fully declared. Foreign accounts are reported to the tax authorities through the automatic exchange of information, as our article CRS reporting obligations for foreign accounts explains. Residents must report payments of more than 50,000 euros to or from abroad to the Bundesbank under Section 67 AWV (Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance). A foreign account also does not protect against levies linked to residence; see the German-language article Auslandskonto und Lastenausgleich. And against EU sanctions it only helps to a limited extent, because banks outside the EU often observe such lists voluntarily.
Liquidity reserve
Assessment: A cash reserve for one to three months of living expenses bridges a freeze like the one in Canada and also a bank holiday. Anyone who keeps cash should be able to document its origin, because cash deposits of larger amounts trigger questions from the bank. In addition, from 10 July 2027 an EU-wide limit of 10,000 euros will apply to cash payments in commercial transactions (Art. 80 Regulation (EU) 2024/1624, application under Art. 90); details in the German-language article Bargeldobergrenze Deutschland.
Documentation
Anyone who can prove where their assets come from will regain access to their money faster after a suspicious transaction report or an account review. Useful are an up-to-date list of accounts, tax assessments and evidence of larger inflows (inheritance, property sale, sale of a business), powers of attorney for relatives at more than one bank, and the contact details of a lawyer who can act immediately in an emergency. If a bank terminates the account, the right to a basic payment account under the Payment Accounts Act (Zahlungskontengesetz) helps.
Example: Mr Fictitious has a main account at a private bank, a second account with its own card at a cooperative bank, a cash reserve for six weeks and orderly records of the sale of his company shares. If the private bank stops a transfer after a suspicious transaction report, he remains able to pay and can document the origin of the funds immediately.
Where the limits lie
Prevention is permissible as long as it is transparent and tax-compliant. Impermissible and in part criminal are:
- concealing accounts or income from the tax office (Section 370 AO, Fiscal Code),
- nominees and concealment of the beneficial owner,
- transfers of assets with the aim of disadvantaging creditors; they can be challenged up to ten years retrospectively under the Avoidance Act and the Insolvency Code (intentional avoidance, Section 3(1) AnfG, Section 133(1) InsO; in the case of securing or satisfying a creditor only four years, Section 3(2) AnfG),
- any circumvention of a sanctions listing, including by third parties who make funds available to a listed person (Section 18 AWG).
In the event of sanctions, no legal arrangement helps: the freeze covers accounts, securities accounts, real estate, precious metals and crypto assets under the control of the listed person. For basic needs there is only a discretionary exemption authorisation, in Germany through the Bundesbank. Anyone who fears a listing should therefore clarify in advance who will represent them and what an application for authorisation would look like.
Conclusion
The case of Canada 2022 shows how quickly a state can access accounts through banks when it obliges them by order: the freezes took effect within a day, also covered joint accounts and had no hardship rule. Two federal courts have declared the emergency and the transfer of data unlawful; this will only become final when the Supreme Court of Canada refuses leave or decides on the merits. What has remained above all is anti-money laundering supervision of crowdfunding.
In Germany there is no comparable emergency instrument against groups of persons, but there are banks that stop funds under anti-money laundering and sanctions law without a prior judicial decision. The legal answer is unspectacular: several unaffiliated banking connections, a declared foreign account, a liquidity reserve and clean documentation of the origin of assets. This does not protect against lawful sanctions and enforcement, but it does protect very well against inability to pay in the acute phase.
Frequently asked questions
Were small donors also frozen in Canada?
According to the report of the commission of inquiry, there is no indication that small donors were specifically targeted. Those affected were mainly organisers, vehicle owners and persons connected to the blockades. However, the data of many donors became public through the hacking attack on GiveSendGo.
Did those affected receive compensation?
To our knowledge, there is no compensation programme. The judgments of 2024 and 2026 declare the measures unlawful but do not award damages. The EEMO excludes civil claims against banks for compliant conduct. According to press reports, one of the organisers has been suing the federal government over the account freezes since February 2024; no decision is known.
Can the federal government in Germany freeze accounts by order?
There is no power to oblige banks to freeze the accounts of certain groups of persons. Under Section 46g KWG, however, in the event of serious dangers to the economy as a whole, the federal government can order a payment moratorium and temporarily close banks; this then affects all customers.
May my bank stop my account without a court order?
Yes, in certain cases: after a suspicious transaction report under anti-money laundering law (standstill at most until the expiry of the third working day, prohibition by the FIU for up to one month) and in the case of EU sanctions, which take effect immediately. An asset freeze under criminal procedure law, by contrast, in principle requires a judge.
Does a foreign account protect against an account freeze?
It protects against measures that only cover domestic institutions, such as the closure of banks or an individual freeze at the house bank, but not against EU sanctions, which banks outside the EU often observe as well, and not against enforcement of titles that are recognised in the other state. The prerequisite is that the account is declared for tax purposes.
Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala and the law firm, which focuses on international inheritance law, tax law and asset protection in Munich, advise entrepreneurs and high-net-worth individuals on precautions against account freezes and state access to bank assets, from spreading across institutions and jurisdictions and documenting the origin of assets to representation in freezes, suspicious transaction reports and sanctions proceedings. 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.
