Bank Information on a Foreign Account After a Death: How Heirs Obtain Information

Published on 12.11.2026

Foreign Bank Accounts After a Death

When a person dies who during his or her lifetime held an account or securities account with a foreign bank, the heirs regularly face a double problem: first, they must find out at all that such an account exists, and second, they must prove their entitlement to the foreign bank in order to obtain information and ultimately access. Both are comparatively well regulated in a purely German context, but not in an international one. This article classifies the heirs’ German claim to information, shows through several country examples why it does not automatically continue abroad, explains the role of the European Certificate of Succession (Europäisches Nachlasszeugnis) and describes the limited means by which heirs can trace unknown foreign accounts at all.

Why Foreign Accounts Are a Separate Problem on a Death

The Common Reporting Standard and comparable reporting systems ensure that tax authorities are increasingly informed automatically about foreign assets, as long as the account holder is alive. With death, however, this ongoing reporting mechanism in effect ends for the heirs: the CRS data flow between tax authorities, not to relatives, and no new notifications to the heirs are triggered automatically after the death either. Heirs thus face a separate civil-law question that has nothing to do with the automatic exchange of information: what claim do they have against a foreign bank, possibly an unknown one, to information on the balance and history of an account, and how do they enforce it?

The Heirs’ Claim to Information Against the Bank Under German Law

To classify the particularities abroad, the German legal position must first be set out precisely; here the basis is different from what is often assumed.

Universal Succession as the Starting Point: Section 1922 BGB

Under Section 1922 (1) of the German Civil Code (BGB), on the death of a person his or her assets as a whole pass to the heir or heirs by way of so-called universal succession (Gesamtrechtsnachfolge). The heirs thus step directly into all rights and obligations of the deceased, including his or her contractual relationship with the bank. They become new contracting parties of the credit institution and in principle have the same information rights that previously belonged to the deceased as account holder.

The Actual Basis of the Claim: Section 666 BGB in Conjunction with Section 675 (1) BGB

The account agreement between bank and customer is legally a paid contract for the management of another’s affairs (entgeltlicher Geschäftsbesorgungsvertrag) within the meaning of Section 675 (1) BGB. For such contracts, Section 675 (1) BGB provides for the corresponding application of Section 666 BGB, under which the agent, here the bank, must give the principal the necessary notices and, on request, provide information on the state of the business. Since the heirs enter into this contractual position under Section 1922 BGB, the heirs’ banking-law claim to information arises from the interplay of Section 666 BGB, Section 675 (1) BGB and Section 1922 BGB. This claim extends not only to the current balance but also to past account movements, since under a current account agreement (Girovertrag) the bank is in any event obliged to render accounts and to issue account statements.

Not to Be Confused: Section 2027 BGB and the “Estate Possessor”

Section 2027 BGB often appears in relevant presentations in this context. This provision establishes a duty of disclosure of the so-called estate possessor (Erbschaftsbesitzer), that is, a person who, wrongfully or in good faith, is in possession of estate items without being heir, for example a relative who after the death has taken valuables or documents from the deceased’s home. Section 2027 BGB thus concerns a different constellation from bank information: a bank does not “possess” the account balance as a supposed person entitled to inherit but is simply the contracting party under the continuing account agreement. The claim to information against the bank is therefore based, as shown above, on Section 666 BGB in conjunction with Section 675 (1) and Section 1922 BGB, not on Section 2027 BGB. This distinction is more than a formality, because it already shows in German law that the decisive connecting factor is the continuing contract, and with a foreign bank this very contract is regularly governed not by German but by foreign law.

Scope of the Information and Its Limits

According to the clearly prevailing view, the heirs’ claim to information against the (German) bank covers in particular:

• existing and already terminated business relationships (current, savings, loan and securities accounts),
• the account balance or securities account value at the time of death and the development in the past,
• a safe-deposit box held by the deceased,
• powers of attorney granted by the deceased,
• existing contracts for the benefit of third parties on death (Verträge zugunsten Dritter auf den Todesfall) and
• guarantee obligations of the deceased.

The bank cannot invoke banking secrecy against the heirs, as it serves exclusively to protect the customer himself or herself, and the heirs step into his or her legal position, not as outside third parties. A confidentiality or secrecy agreement made with the deceased during his or her lifetime also does not in principle bind the heirs where purely financial information is concerned; this may be different for highly personal, non-financial matters. The claim does, however, also have limits: the bank does not have to inform the heirs of its own accord but must provide information only on request. In a community of heirs, each co-heir can in principle assert the joint claim to information, but only for the benefit of all co-heirs together; the bank then informs all co-heirs unless one of them has been effectively authorised. Only persons entitled to a compulsory share who have not themselves become heirs have no claim to information against the bank of their own; in that respect they must turn to the heirs.

Must a Certificate of Inheritance Always Be Presented?

As early as 2013, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) decided that banks may not require presentation of a certificate of inheritance (Erbschein) across the board in their general terms and conditions if the status as heir can also be sufficiently proven in another way, for example by a notarial will together with the court’s record of opening (BGH, judgment of 08.10.2013, ref. XI ZR 401/12, BGHZ 198, 250). A corresponding clause in the general terms and conditions was declared ineffective as an unreasonable disadvantage under Section 307 (1), (2) no. 1 BGB. Only if the succession does not result beyond doubt from the document presented, for example in case of difficulties of interpretation or several contradictory dispositions on death, may the bank continue to demand a certificate of inheritance from German heirs as well. This case law naturally binds only banks subject to German law or German standards for control of general terms and conditions; foreign institutions are not bound by it, as the following sections show.

Why This Does Not Automatically Continue Abroad

For the question of who becomes heir and in what proportion, the so-called law governing succession (Erbstatut) is in principle uniformly decisive within the EU, under the EU Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No 650/2012) as a rule the law of the state in which the deceased had his or her last habitual residence. Who becomes heir under this law is thus to be judged uniformly across the Union; our article German inheritance law when living abroad explains when German law still applies at all. A completely different question, however, is which law applies to the bank agreement itself and thus to the modalities of providing information, the scope of duties to cooperate and the proof of identity and entitlement the bank accepts. This law governing the contract (Vertragsstatut) is, put simply, regularly determined by the law at the seat of the bank keeping the account or by its general terms and conditions, not by the law governing succession. A bank in Zurich, Vienna or New York therefore in principle applies Swiss, Austrian or US law to its own contractual reporting, information and identification duties, regardless of the fact that the succession itself may be determined by German inheritance law. This very split between the law governing succession and the law governing the bank agreement is the legal root of the practical problem that heirs face with foreign accounts.

Country Examples: How Other Legal Systems Treat the Claim to Information

Switzerland

The much-cited Swiss banking secrecy does not in principle stand in the way of a request for information by heirs: as legal successors of the deceased, heirs enter into the contractual bank customer relationship and thus in principle have the same information rights that the deceased had as account holder. For foreign heirs, for example German ones, an important restriction applies, however: Swiss banks increasingly additionally require proof that the status as heir also actually exists under the foreign succession law applicable in the individual case; a mere reference to a German document does not always suffice without more. There is no central information office where heirs could systematically search for unknown Swiss bank relationships; only for so-called dormant assets (nachrichtenlose Vermögenswerte), meaning accounts with which there has been no contact over a longer period, can heirs turn to the Swiss Banking Ombudsman, who has access to a corresponding database kept by the banks.

Austria

In Austria, banking secrecy under Section 38 (1) of the Banking Act (Bankwesengesetz, BWG) is traditionally strict. In probate proceedings (Verlassenschaftsverfahren), the Austrian counterpart of the German estate proceedings, it is, however, lifted towards the competent court and the court commissioner (Gerichtskommissär) appointed by the court: banks must give these bodies comprehensive information on all assets identified or legitimised for the deceased, regardless of whether their belonging to the estate has already been established in the individual case. The scope is important here: the lifting applies towards the court and the court commissioner, not automatically towards each individual heir directly against the bank, as is the case in German law. In addition, Austria has a central account register kept by the Federal Ministry of Finance, which provides information on the institutions at which a person holds accounts, securities accounts or safe-deposit boxes; access to it, however, remains reserved to authorities and is not directly open to heirs.

Spain: An Example of Differing Formal Requirements Within the EU

Even within the EU there are considerable practical differences, even where the law governing succession is harmonised Europe-wide. A recurring example in practice concerns Spanish institutions that target German customers specifically but are subject to Spanish law: a German certificate of inheritance or a notarial will opened in Germany regularly does not suffice there. Instead, an acceptance of inheritance under Spanish law (“aceptación de herencia”) is required, which involves additional effort, its own periods and regularly also costs for local legal support. Heirs who rely solely on their German documents risk delaying payment by months.

USA

In the United States, for accounts in the sole name of the deceased, banks regularly require Letters Testamentary or Letters of Administration from the probate court, in some cases a small-estate affidavit instead. A death certificate and the heir’s identity document usually suffice only for joint accounts or payable-on-death accounts. This is a statement of practice from US law-firm and bank information on probate proceedings, not a primary provision; the requirements of the individual bank should therefore be enquired about in advance. A simple power of attorney issued abroad, by contrast, is as a rule not recognised under US law. For the actual payout of balances, US banks also often require additional proof, such as a confirmation from the US tax authority IRS that no outstanding liabilities exist in connection with the American estate tax. Irrespective of the requirements of the individual bank, German heirs must also observe their separate tax notification duty: under Section 30 of the Inheritance and Gift Tax Act (ErbStG), a taxable acquisition, regardless of whether it is located in Germany or abroad, must be notified to the competent German tax office within three months of knowledge.

The European Certificate of Succession as a Relief Within the EU

Within the European Union, the EU Succession Regulation creates, with the European Certificate of Succession (ENZ), a uniform document of legitimation that allows heirs, legatees, executors and administrators of the estate to prove their legal position in any other EU member state, for example towards a bank there, without additional certification or apostille (Art. 62 et seq. of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012). The ENZ is issued by the authority competent under the respective national law at the deceased’s habitual residence; if the deceased had his or her last habitual residence in Germany, this is regularly the competent German probate court. Our article Probate court jurisdiction when living abroad explains how this jurisdiction is determined in the individual case. It should be noted that certified copies of the ENZ are valid for only six months under Art. 70 (3) of the Regulation; if the document is needed beyond that, an extension of the period of validity or a new certified copy must be requested from the issuing authority in good time. The decisive restriction lies, however, in the territorial scope: the European Certificate of Succession has its facilitating effect exclusively within the EU member states (with the exception of Denmark and Ireland). Towards banks in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the USA or other third countries it has no direct legitimising effect; there, the respective national requirements remain, as illustrated above.

How Do Heirs Learn of Unknown Foreign Accounts at All?

Even before the question of the claim to information there is a practical problem: heirs often do not know at all that an account abroad exists. The following routes are in principle available, in part with considerable restrictions.

Researching in the Estate Itself

The most obvious starting point, and in practice often the most productive, is the estate itself: old account statements, post and e-mails from banks, tax documents with foreign investment income, interest certificates and earlier tax assessments in which foreign income was already declared once often provide the decisive clues to an existing foreign relationship.

The German Tracing Procedure of the Banking Associations and Its Limits

For domestic accounts, the Association of German Banks (Bundesverband deutscher Banken) offers a free tracing procedure (contact: nachforschung@bdb.de); comparable procedures exist for the savings bank sector via the German Savings Banks and Giro Association (nachforschung@dsgv.de) and via the National Association of German Cooperative Banks. In each case, proof of entitlement to inherit is required, for example a certificate of inheritance or an opened will. These procedures, however, have two essential limits: they cover only institutions within the respective German association and only accounts that currently still exist; relationships already terminated are not captured. For foreign accounts, these German association procedures are not competent from the outset; here the associations refer to direct contact with the respective foreign banking associations, many European ones of which are organised in the European Banking Federation, but a systematic search procedure across associations and borders does not result from this.

Account Retrieval Procedure under Section 93 AO: Only for Authorities, Only Domestic

The German account retrieval procedure under Section 93 (7) and (8) of the Fiscal Code (AO) allows certain authorities, in particular tax offices but also certain social authorities, to query automatically via the Federal Central Tax Office (BZSt) at which domestic credit institutions a person holds accounts or securities accounts. Only basic account data under Section 93b AO are retrieved, such as the existence, type and opening date of an account, not its balance. Decisive for heirs: this procedure is available exclusively to the authorities named by law, not to private heirs themselves, and covers only domestic institutions. A tax office can initiate it in the course of inheritance tax assessment if its own enquiries of the parties are unsuccessful or promise no success; for a targeted search for foreign accounts, by contrast, it is unsuitable.

CRS Reporting Data Are Not a Search Tool for Heirs

As set out in the detailed article CRS reporting duties: what the tax office learns about foreign accounts, financial institutions in over 100 participating states report account data automatically each year to the tax authority of the account holder’s state of residence. This mechanism, however, is strictly designed for the ongoing exchange of data between tax authorities during the lifetime of the account holder; it provides for no automatic data flow to heirs after the death of the account holder, and it cannot be retrieved by heirs on their own either. Indirectly, earlier tax assessments or notifications from the tax office about foreign investment income already received by the deceased, which may go back to CRS reports, can serve in the estate as an indication of an existing foreign account; that is, however, not a targeted request for information.

The Future EU-Wide Account Register: So Far No Access for Private Individuals

Under the new European anti-money-laundering package, an interconnection of national bank account registers at EU level is envisaged in future, intended to make it easier for investigating and supervisory authorities to learn quickly at which institutions a person holds accounts. These registers capture essential basic account data such as account holder, beneficial owners, IBAN and the opening and, where applicable, closing date. Decisive here too, however: according to current plans, access is and remains reserved to the competent authorities, such as financial intelligence units and law enforcement and supervisory authorities. For private heirs who wish to search for unknown foreign accounts on their own, this register also opens no direct access.

Direct Enquiry to Suspected Banks

If there is a concrete suspicion of an account at a particular foreign bank, for example on the basis of old documents or oral indications from within the family, what regularly remains is a direct, properly formed enquiry to that institution, together with the proof of identity and entitlement required under the respective national law. Precisely because the requirements vary from bank to bank and from country to country, prior legal clarification is advisable here to avoid queries and delays.

Practical Approach: Checklist for Heirs with a Suspected Foreign Account

← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen

Keeping Deadlines in View

In addition to the three-month notification period under Section 30 ErbStG already mentioned, heirs should also keep the civil-law limitation of their claim to information in view: where German law applies to the bank agreement, the regular three-year limitation period applies (Sections 195, 199 BGB); it begins at the end of the year in which the claim arose and the creditor became aware of the circumstances giving rise to the claim or would have become aware of them without gross negligence (Section 199 (1) BGB). Where a foreign law governs the contract, it determines limitation (Art. 12 (1) letter d Rome I Regulation, Regulation (EC) No 593/2008). Anyone who learns of a foreign account only years after the death should therefore have these periods reviewed early, before taking action.

A further tax aspect arises: as universal successor, the heir is obliged to correct incorrect or incomplete tax returns of the deceased as soon as he or she recognises the error (Section 153 (1) sentence 2 AO). Foreign accounts previously unknown belong in the inheritance tax return; depending on the situation, a voluntary disclosure (Selbstanzeige) under Section 371 AO may be considered, which should be reviewed by an expert before it is filed.

Conclusion

The heirs’ claim to information against a bank is clearly anchored in German law: it arises from Section 666 BGB in conjunction with Section 675 (1) BGB and universal succession under Section 1922 BGB, not from Section 2027 BGB, which concerns a different case constellation. As soon as a foreign bank is involved, however, this German legal position does not apply automatically: decisive for the form, scope and identification requirements of the information is regularly the law at the seat of the bank, which can deviate considerably from the German law governing succession, from Switzerland through Austria to EU member states with their own formal requirements or the USA. The European Certificate of Succession creates an important but territorially limited relief within the EU. And even finding an unknown foreign account is, for want of an international account register accessible to heirs, often possible only through careful evaluation of the estate and targeted individual enquiries.

Attorney Dr. Johannes Fiala advises heirs and persons involved in estates on clarifying claims to information against domestic and foreign banks, on applying for the European Certificate of Succession and on the legally secure handling of estates with a cross-border element. Get in touch with the firm without obligation to discuss your specific case in an initial consultation.