In Germany, state access to private assets requires a statutory basis and a legal connecting factor. For law-abiding private individuals, the obvious risks are not levies or expropriations but events around the bank account and enforcement. Much of what circulates is not accurate: the digital euro has not been adopted, the reversal of the burden of proof for assets of unclear origin exists only in a draft, and no legislative procedure on a one-off capital levy (Vermögensabgabe) is apparent.
This page classifies the routes of access and leads to the more detailed articles, for example on account freezes or on the burden-sharing levy (Lastenausgleich). It does not replace a review of the individual case.
How Likely Is Access? An Assessment
How likely access is depends far more on the occasion than on the size of the assets. The following table is an assessment, not a statistic:
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Route of access | Typical occasion | Assessment for law-abiding private individuals |
|---|---|---|
| Account data retrieval (Kontenabruf) | Tax, social security or enforcement case | everyday, shows accounts but freezes nothing |
| Garnishment (Pfändung) | Outstanding claim, including one of the tax office | frequent where debts exist |
| Freeze or termination by the bank | Unusual payment, suspicious activity report, business decision | can also affect people under no suspicion |
| Freeze by the FIU, asset freezing order (Vermögensarrest), confiscation (Einziehung) | Suspicion of a criminal offence | occasion-related, documentation becomes important |
| Exit tax (Wegzugsteuer) and inheritance tax (Erbschaftsteuer) | Own decision, succession | can be planned |
| Bank holiday (Bankfeiertag), bail-in | Severe banking crisis | rare, but then affects many at once |
| Sanctions listing | Personal listing by the EU | remote for the vast majority, very drastic in the event of listing |
| One-off capital levy | Extraordinary state emergency and new law | legally conceivable, no procedure currently apparent |
What Every State Access Is Linked To
Every access needs a legal hook, and there are essentially four of them.
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Connecting factor | Examples | What a move abroad changes |
|---|---|---|
| Domicile or habitual abode | Unlimited income tax liability (§§ 8, 9 Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung, AO)) | lapses only if genuinely given up; a dwelling kept can suffice |
| Nationality | EU sanctions, refusal of a passport (§ 7 Passport Act (Passgesetz, PassG)), inheritance tax after-effect (§ 2 Inheritance Tax Act (Erbschaftsteuergesetz, ErbStG)) | remains in principle |
| Location of the assets | Garnishment of domestic accounts and real property, tax on domestic assets | remains for everything located in Germany |
| Seat of the bank or custodian | Bank holiday, anti-money laundering obligations, deposit protection | changes only with an institution in another jurisdiction |
From the FATF to the Bank Counter: How Access Arises
Many rules begin as an international standard and reach the individual only through several stages. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) sets recommendations against money laundering, the OECD the standard for the exchange of account data, the Basel Committee requirements for banks. These become EU regulations and directives, then federal laws. In the end they are often enforced not by an authority but by the bank as an obliged entity under the law.
That is why access often shows up first at the bank counter, and the bank is often not allowed to state the reason.
The widespread figure that 80 percent of German laws come from Brussels is not substantiated. A scientific analysis of 3,097 federal laws from the years 1976 to 2005 found a European impulse in 24.0 percent, most recently in 35.7 percent. This figure does not include directly applicable regulations, for example on sanctions and money laundering.
The Routes of Access in Germany at a Glance
Six routes can be distinguished in Germany.
Account Data Retrieval: Seeing Is Not Freezing
In an account data retrieval, an authority learns which accounts and securities accounts a person holds, but not the balance or the transactions. The Federal Central Tax Office (Bundeszentralamt für Steuern) retrieves the master data in the cases of § 93 (7) and (8) AO (§ 93b AO). According to the Federal Government, there were 1,403,581 retrievals in 2023 (Bundestag printed paper (Bundestagsdrucksache, BT-Drs.) 20/10841). As a rule, the person concerned must be informed of the possibility in advance and notified afterwards, with exceptions (§ 93 (9) AO). More on this in the article Account check: what authorities may ask.
Account Freeze by the Bank and the FIU
A blocked payment can have several causes, and duration and remedies depend on the cause. After a suspicious activity report, the bank may not execute the reported transaction until the authorities consent or until the end of the third working day after the report was sent (§ 46 (1) Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG)). The Financial Intelligence Unit (Zentralstelle für Finanztransaktionsuntersuchungen, FIU) can in addition prohibit dispositions over the account and securities account and have access to the safe deposit box blocked, for a maximum of one month (§ 40 (1), (4) GwG). For longer, a measure by the judiciary is generally required.
Termination is a separate matter: banks can in principle terminate a current account ordinarily with two months’ notice (§ 675h German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, BGB)); savings banks (Sparkassen) need an objectively justified reason for this (Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH), judgment of 5 May 2015, XI ZR 214/14). Details are given in the articles on unblocking a frozen account and Bank closes account without reason.
Bank Holiday under § 46g KWG and Banking Crisis
The Federal Government can order a bank holiday by statutory ordinance. The prerequisite is feared economic difficulties at credit institutions that give reason to expect serious dangers for the economy as a whole. Possible measures are a moratorium for one institution and the temporary closure of banks and stock exchanges, after consulting the Bundesbank. § 46g Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz, KWG) does not name a maximum duration.
This is something different from loss participation in a bank failure, the bail-in: covered deposits up to 100,000 euros are exempt from it (§ 91 (2) no. 1 Recovery and Resolution Act (Sanierungs- und Abwicklungsgesetz, SAG)). Statutory deposit protection covers this amount per depositor and institution (§ 8 (1) Deposit Guarantee Act (Einlagensicherungsgesetz, EinSiG)), and temporarily up to 500,000 euros in special cases such as the sale of a privately used residential property (§ 8 (2) EinSiG).
Confiscation and the Planned Reversal of the Burden of Proof
A reversal of the burden of proof for assets of unclear origin does not currently apply. The court must be convinced that an object seized on suspicion of a catalogue offence derives from an unlawful act (§ 76a (4) Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, StGB), § 437 Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO)). A conviction is not required for this, and the case law interprets the provision broadly (BGH, order of 3 December 2025, 5 StR 702/24).
The statutory presumption exists only in the draft of the Federal Council (Bundesrat) (BT-Drs. 21/5777); a resolution of the Bundestag adopting it is not apparent. The Act implementing EU Directive 2024/1260 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 320, promulgated on 27 October 2026) does not contain it. Further along in the procedure is the government draft BT-Drs. 21/8282 with a confiscation procedure outside criminal proceedings: on application by customs (Zoll), the fiscal court (Finanzgericht) is to decide. It would cover significant assets, in particular over 100,000 euros, and for registrable items such as real property over 50,000 euros. The hearing in the Finance Committee was scheduled for 2 November 2026; the act has not been adopted.
One-off Capital Levy and Burden-Sharing Levy
A one-off capital levy is named in the Basic Law as a source of revenue of the Federation (Art. 106 (1) no. 5 Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG)), but it would be bound to narrow requirements and would need a new law. In 2008, the Research Services of the Bundestag (Wissenschaftliche Dienste) named as requirements, among others, an exceptional state situation and its one-off nature (WD 4 – 3000 – 176/08). The historical model is the Equalisation of Burdens Act (Lastenausgleichsgesetz) of 1952 with a levy of 50 percent, spread over around 30 years. No ongoing legislative procedure on a one-off capital levy was apparent as of the legal position stated.
This must be distinguished from the wealth tax (Vermögensteuer), which has not been levied since 1997. On 7 October 2026, the Finance Committee recommended rejecting a motion to reintroduce it (BT-Drs. 21/8481). Expropriation is also something else: under Art. 14 (3) GG it requires a law with a compensation provision and serves the public good. More in the article Burden-sharing levy 2026 and, for owners, in the article on asset protection for property owners.
Exit Tax and Inheritance Tax After-Effect
Here the state does not access assets because of a suspicion, but because the law links to the move abroad or the succession. Anyone who holds shares within the meaning of § 17 Income Tax Act (Einkommensteuergesetz, EStG) and was subject to unlimited tax liability for at least seven years in the last twelve years is treated on moving away as if he or she had sold them (§ 6 (1), (2) Foreign Tax Act (Außensteuergesetz, AStG)). On application, payment in seven annual instalments is possible, as a rule against security (§ 6 (4) AStG); see the article on exit tax in seven annual instalments.
For inheritance tax, German nationals without a domicile in Germany remain subject to unlimited tax liability in the first five years of a permanent stay abroad (§ 2 (1) no. 1 letter b ErbStG). Beyond that, domestic assets remain covered (§ 2 (1) no. 3 ErbStG).
What Comes from Brussels: Sanctions, Cash Limit, Register
Sanctions. EU sanctions regulations apply directly and, according to their wording, also to nationals of the Member States outside the Union (thus Art. 19 letter c Regulation (EU) 2024/2642). Those affected are listed persons and their assets, not the general public. Providers of instant credit transfers check their customers against the lists without delay after every change to the lists and at least once per calendar day (Art. 5d (1) Regulation (EU) 260/2012), so a freeze can take effect very quickly. On the consequences of violations, see the article on confiscation of assets for sanctions violations.
Cash limit. From 10 July 2027, persons who trade in goods or provide services may accept or make cash payments only up to 10,000 euros (Art. 80 (1), Art. 90 Regulation (EU) 2024/1624). This also affects the private buyer who pays a dealer in cash. Member States may set lower limits (Art. 80 (2)). Payments between private individuals not acting in a professional capacity are exempt (Art. 80 (4) letter a). Cash therefore remains permitted, and the regulation does not limit possession. Details in the article on the cash limit in Germany, and for context also Cash under pressure.
Asset register. There is no central EU register of the assets of all citizens. A feasibility study commissioned by the Commission was published in July 2024; a legal act introducing such a register is not apparent.
Account and Bank: Digital Euro and State Access to Accounts
The digital euro has not been adopted. Parliament and Council have been negotiating in trilogue since July 2026, and the European Parliament’s legislative observatory (2023/0212(COD)) records no provisional agreement as of 2 November 2026. The European Central Bank considers issuance in 2029 possible if the regulation is adopted in 2026. Under the Commission proposal (COM(2023) 369), the following applies to access:
- Holding limit: provided for, but the amount is not set in the law; who sets it is disputed between Council and Parliament.
- Programmable money: excluded (Art. 24 (2)).
- Data: the central banks are not to be able to identify users directly; the payment service providers know their customers because of anti-money laundering obligations.
- Freezes: the proposal does not provide for a separate switch-off function; sanctions and criminal proceedings take effect via the payment service provider, as with an account.
The negotiated versions may deviate from this. For account data retrieval, freezes and garnishment, the rules described above continue to apply; see also what authorities learn about accounts.
Why Legal Protection Often Comes Too Late
Legal protection exists, but in main proceedings it usually takes effect only long after the access. The statistics for 2024 show the orders of magnitude:
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Court | Main proceedings on average | Concluded by judgment | Urgent proceedings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fiscal courts | 15.3 months | 23.2 months (including court decisions without hearing) | 3.5 months |
| Administrative courts (including asylum proceedings) | 14.2 months | 20.2 months | 1.7 months |
The figures of the Federal Statistical Office (Statistisches Bundesamt) concern all proceedings, not only asset cases. Urgent proceedings are considerably faster, although the outcome is open. Anyone who knows the right legal basis and the right application early loses less time.
How far subsequent legal protection can reach is shown by Canada in 2022: under emergency law, around 280 financial products were frozen without a judgment. The Federal Court (2024 FC 42) and the Federal Court of Appeal (2026 FCA 6) held the application of the Emergencies Act to be unlawful, and the Supreme Court of Canada granted leave to appeal on 22 October 2026. More on this in the article on the account freezes in Canada. No conclusions for German law can be drawn from this, but the sequence in time is instructive.
What You Can Legally Do in Advance: The Step-by-Step Plan
Sensible precaution consists above all of order and knowledge, not of moving assets. The following overview is organised by the legal status of the respective rule. It contains no investment recommendation.
Step 1: What applies today
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Topic | What it is about | What it does not achieve |
|---|---|---|
| Emergency folder (Notfallmappe) | Organised proof of origin: tax assessments, contracts, certificate of inheritance, gift notification, purchase receipts | does not replace advice in ongoing proceedings |
| Payment transactions | A second current account at an unaffiliated institution can cushion the loss of one account | does not help against garnishment or listing; the accounts can be found via account data retrieval |
| Time buffer | Receipts and a reserve of a few working days for large, deadline-bound payments | does not prevent a suspicious activity report |
| Basic payment account (Basiskonto) | Entitlement for consumers lawfully resident in the EU (§ 31 Payment Accounts Act (Zahlungskontengesetz, ZKG)), also after an account has been terminated (§ 35 ZKG) | grounds for refusal remain possible (§§ 35, 36 ZKG) |
| Garnishment protection account (Pfändungsschutzkonto, P-Konto) | Conversion on request even with an overdraft (§ 850k Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO)); since 1 July 2026, around 1,590 euros per month are protected, namely 1,587.40 euros rounded up to the next full ten euros (§ 899 (1) ZPO) | only one P-Konto per person, only on a credit basis |
| Tax and reporting status | Fulfil declarations and reporting obligations completely, including on foreign accounts, see CRS reporting obligations | does not prevent access, but avoids violations of your own |
Step 2: Adopted, with a cut-off date. From 10 July 2027, the cash limit and the ban on anonymous accounts and safe deposit boxes apply (Art. 79, 80 Regulation (EU) 2024/1624). Anyone planning larger purchases can prepare the payment method and the receipts in good time.
Step 3: Planned. Reversal of the burden of proof, the customs procedure and the digital euro are open. Asset decisions based solely on a draft carry risks of their own, particularly as restructuring under pressure can have legal consequences. A further classification is offered by the emergency plan for asset protection.
Where Precaution Ends
Precaution is permissible; withdrawing assets from an imminent access is not. Timing and purpose are decisive.
← Tabelle nach links wischen, um weitere Spalten zu sehen
| Action | Classification | Legal limit |
|---|---|---|
| Organising documents, keeping accounts and status transparent | permissible | none, as long as the information is correct |
| Timely, documented and reported structuring without a specific risk to creditors | permissible in principle, to be reviewed in the individual case | §§ 3, 4 Avoidance Act (Anfechtungsgesetz, AnfG) must still be observed |
| Transfer to relatives when claims are foreseeable | delicate | avoidance, depending on the ground, up to four or ten years back (§§ 3, 4 AnfG, §§ 129 et seq. Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung, InsO)) |
| Removing assets when enforcement is imminent in order to leave the creditor empty-handed | criminal offence | § 288 StGB: imprisonment of up to two years or a fine, prosecution only upon request |
| Concealing an illegal origin | criminal offence | § 261 StGB |
| Circumventing a freeze after a sanctions listing | criminal offence | § 18 (1) Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz, AWG): imprisonment of three months to five years |
Two widespread assumptions do not hold:
- Usufruct, land charge or right of residence as a shield. A prior, validly created right can survive in a compulsory auction and reduce the proceeds (§§ 44, 52 Compulsory Auction Act (Zwangsversteigerungsgesetz, ZVG)). Its creation can, however, be open to avoidance (§§ 3, 4 AnfG, §§ 133, 134 InsO), and the tax office acts by way of a liability notice (Duldungsbescheid) (§ 191 AO). In principle, only the recipient of a gratuitous benefit who acted in good faith can rely on loss of enrichment, and only as long as he or she neither knows nor ought to know of the prejudice to creditors (§ 11 (1), (2) AnfG, § 143 (1), (2) InsO). The land charge and the exercise of the usufruct are moreover subject to garnishment (§ 857 ZPO, § 1059 BGB). Under this legal position, such an encumbrance does not reliably protect against levies either.
- The detour via your own foreign account. According to the Bundesbank’s explanatory notes, mere transfers from a domestic account to your own foreign account are not reportable under §§ 67 et seq. Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (Außenwirtschaftsverordnung, AWV), whereas payments over 50,000 euros from there to non-residents are. The transfer does not create protection, however: the balance remains your own assets and thus a target of enforcement, and rapid transfers can trigger suspicion. Tax reporting and declaration obligations remain unaffected.
General questions of timely structuring are covered in the article on asset protection, further strategies in the article on protection against expropriation.
What a Move Abroad Changes and What It Does Not
A move abroad only resolves what depends on the domicile. Unlimited income tax liability can end if domicile and habitual abode are genuinely given up. The rules linked to nationality remain, however, such as the EU sanctions and passport law: a passport must be refused, among other things, if facts justify the assumption that someone intends to evade his or her tax obligations (§ 7 (1) no. 4 PassG), unless the refusal is disproportionate (§ 7 (2) PassG). Everything located in Germany also remains within reach, and the move abroad can itself give rise to a tax.
An account abroad or assets abroad changes only the hook of the location of the bank or the assets, and the reporting obligations follow along. The law of the destination country should be reviewed by an adviser on the spot. The tax traps are described in the article Moving away from Germany. If the tax treatment of a transaction is unclear, a binding ruling from the tax office (verbindliche Auskunft) under § 89 (2) AO can be considered before implementation.
Conclusion
In Germany, state access to private assets is bound to law and occasion, and most buzzwords describe drafts or exceptional cases. Of practical importance are above all events around the account, the origin of assets and enforcement. Orderly documents and knowledge of your own rights help more there than hasty restructuring with legal consequences of its own.
Frequently Asked Questions
May the state simply take my money?
No, it needs a statutory basis and an occasion for that. Expropriation requires a law with a compensation provision (Art. 14 (3) GG). Garnishment, confiscation or tax follow their own rules with legal protection, which, however, often takes effect only after the access.
Can the state see which accounts I have?
Yes, in the cases regulated by law, but only the master data. In an account data retrieval, the authority learns which accounts and securities accounts exist and who is authorised to dispose of them, not balances or transactions (§§ 93, 93b AO). The retrieval does not cause a freeze.
Does the reversal of the burden of proof for assets of unclear origin already apply?
No. It exists only in the draft bill of the Federal Council (BT-Drs. 21/5777). Under current law, the court must be convinced of the criminal origin (§ 76a (4) StGB, § 437 StPO).
Will cash be abolished by the digital euro or the cash limit?
No. The digital euro has not been adopted, and the limit of 10,000 euros from 10 July 2027 concerns payments to or from persons who trade in goods or provide services, not payments between private individuals.
Does an account abroad protect against state access?
Only to a very limited extent. It can play a role if a single country or institution fails, but its income must be declared, account data from many states is transmitted automatically to the tax authorities, it does not protect against a sanctions listing and it does not remove assets from lawful enforcement. If money is moved there to frustrate imminent enforcement, criminal liability under § 288 StGB may arise.
As of: 2 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 asset holders and entrepreneurs on questions of state access to private assets, from the classification of a specific measure through timely and openly documented precaution to the review of legal remedies. 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.
