Money laundering criminal law

Money laundering administrative offenses

Money laundering compliance

Lawyer Specializing in Money Laundering Criminal Law in Munich

Criminal Defense in Cases of Money Laundering, Account Freezes, and Violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG)

Criminal law relating to money laundering often extends far beyond the actual charge under Section 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). Account freezes, reports of suspicious activity, asset freezes, proof of origin, and regulatory issues under the Money Laundering Act may all become relevant at the same time.

schirach.law represents individuals, entrepreneurs, executives, and companies nationwide in preliminary investigations and criminal proceedings involving money laundering. In addition, we advise and represent entities subject to the Money Laundering Act during GwG audits, as well as in proceedings involving administrative offenses and fines.

A suspicion of money laundering does not in itself mean that criminal money laundering has been proven. Rather, what matters for the defense is the specific unlawful act from which an asset is alleged to have originated, the specific act of which the defendant is accused, and what the defendant knew about the asset’s origin or is alleged to have recklessly failed to recognize.

It is precisely these three questions—origin, action, and knowledge—that therefore often form the starting point of the defense.

Criminal Law on Money Laundering: What Does Section 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) Cover?

Money laundering involves the handling of assets derived from an unlawful act.

Section 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) covers, subject to the respective statutory requirements, in particular the concealment, exchange, transfer, transportation, procurement, safekeeping, and use of such assets. In addition, concealing or disguising certain facts regarding the origin, discovery, or forfeiture of such assets may be a criminal offense.

Since the introduction of the so-called “all-crimes” approach, virtually any unlawful act can be considered a predicate offense. Therefore, money laundering proceedings may, for example, relate to assets derived from fraud, embezzlement, corruption offenses, tax crimes, insolvency offenses, cybercrime, or other unlawful acts.

However, mere contact with a suspicious asset does not in itself constitute a criminal offense. Similarly, neither an unusual wire transfer nor a suspicious activity report nor an account freeze, taken on its own, constitutes proof of money laundering.

In criminal law relating to money laundering, it is therefore always necessary to distinguish between a situation of suspicion and proof that the legal requirements have been met.

Schirach.law specializes in money laundering criminal law.

schirach.law has particular experience in defending against money laundering charges and in advising on money laundering prevention and compliance obligations.

Attorney Marco Benedikt von Schirach is a specialist in criminal law and served on the board of the Munich Bar Association from 2018 to 2025, as well as chairing its anti-money laundering department. He also lectures and publishes on money laundering and anti-money laundering compliance. From the fourth edition onward, he provides commentary on the chapter "Money Laundering" in the standard commentary Gaier/Wolf/Göcken, " Lawyers' Professional Law ."

Attorneys Frédéric Heindel, LL.B. , Julian Korbinian Huber , and Simon Hannes Bloch also have practical experience in defending clients in money laundering cases. Frédéric Heindel is also a Certified Defense Attorney for White-Collar Crime and Tax Crime (DSV eV); Julian Korbinian Huber is a Certified Tax Crime Consultant and a Certified Consultant for Crypto Assets and Taxes.

Schirach.law thus combines experience in criminal defense with knowledge of money laundering prevention and the regulatory requirements of the Money Laundering Act.

When should a criminal defense attorney be consulted?

As early as possible—especially before making detailed statements to the police, the district attorney's office, a bank, or other agencies.

Specialized legal advice is particularly advisable if

• The police or the district attorney's office are investigating a money laundering case,
• you receive a summons or notice of hearing,
• investigative authorities search your home or business premises,
• If your bank freezes an account or fails to process transactions,
• a cryptocurrency exchange blocks an account or a withdrawal, or
• the bank requires documentation regarding the source of the assets,
• an asset freeze was ordered,
• a regulatory authority verifies compliance with AMLA obligations,
• there is a risk of administrative fines for possible violations of the Money Laundering Act,
• a report of a suspected case must be investigated, or
• There are internal indications of potential money laundering-related activities.

Taking early action is particularly important when frozen assets impair a party’s ability to conduct business. At the same time, an early review can help identify additional protective measures in a timely manner.

What must investigative authorities prove in money laundering cases?

An allegation of money laundering cannot be based solely on an unusual transaction.

The focus is consistently on three elements: the unlawful origin of the asset, a money laundering act as defined by law, and the subjective liability of the accused.

Illegal Origin

First, it must be determined from which unlawful act the specific asset is alleged to have originated.

A distinction must be made between credible evidence of the source of funds and mere suspicion. While patterns, unusual payment methods, large amounts of cash, or complex transaction chains may give rise to further investigations, they do not replace an examination of the actual source of the funds.

Specific act of money laundering

Next, it must be determined what specific act the defendant is accused of.

This may involve, for example, the transfer, acquisition, safekeeping, or use of an asset. The allegation may also be that facts regarding the origin, discovery, or confiscation of the asset were concealed or obscured.

However, mere participation in a transaction chain is not automatically sufficient.

Intent or Recklessness

Ultimately, what matters is what the defendant knew about the origin of the asset.

Under certain conditions, § 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) also covers cases in which a person recklessly fails to recognize that property is derived from an unlawful act.

Therefore, the defense must reconstruct what information the affected person actually had and what conclusions could have been drawn from it.

What is the penalty for money laundering?

The potential penalty depends on the specific offense and the circumstances of the individual case.

For money laundering under Section 261, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the German Criminal Code (StGB), the law generally provides for a prison sentence of up to five years or a fine.

If a person subject to the obligations under § 2 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) commits an offense under § 261(1) or (2) of the Criminal Code (StGB), the law provides for a prison sentence of three months to five years.

In particularly serious cases, the penalty ranges from six months to ten years. The law specifically mentions commercial activity and certain types of criminal organizations.

Reckless money laundering, on the other hand, is punishable by imprisonment for up to two years or a fine.

Therefore, the applicable range of penalties in a specific case can only be determined after the charges have been reviewed.

Report of Suspected Money Laundering and the FIU

The Money Laundering Act requires certain companies and professional groups to immediately report any reportable circumstances to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The legal requirements are set forth in particular in Section 43 of the Money Laundering Act (GwG).

However, a suspicious activity report does not mean that money laundering has already been confirmed. Rather, the FIU analyzes the reported facts and may forward relevant information to law enforcement agencies.

Those affected often do not find out whether their bank or another obligated party has filed a suspicious activity report. This is because the Money Laundering Act generally restricts the disclosure of information to the affected party regarding such a report.

Possible signs include, for example,

• a delayed transfer,
• additional questions regarding the source of funds,
• the request for extensive documentation,
• a transaction that was not executed,
• limited account access, or
• the termination of a business relationship.

However, these same measures may also have other causes. Therefore, it should first be clarified whether this is merely an internal compliance audit or whether regulatory action has already been taken.

Account Frozen Due to Suspected Money Laundering—What Should You Do?

First, we need to determine why the bank is restricting access or certain transactions.

Account freezes are among the most severe practical consequences that clients face under criminal money laundering law. Such a restriction may result from an internal compliance audit, a report of suspected money laundering, an action taken by regulatory authorities, or a court-ordered asset freeze.

These causes have different legal consequences. Therefore, we first examine:

• Which transaction triggered the audit?
• Is the entire account affected, or just a single transaction?
• What information does the bank require?
• What proofs of origin are already available?
• Is there already a preliminary investigation underway?
• Are there any measures being taken by the public prosecutor's office or the courts?
• Are there any other accounts or assets involved?

Following a report of a suspected transaction, the specific transaction in question may generally not be executed until the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office has given its approval or the statutory waiting period has expired without any prohibition being issued. Details are governed by § 46 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG).

However, the expiration of this period does not automatically mean that a fully frozen account must be unfrozen. This is because the bank’s internal measures or additional regulatory safeguards may remain in effect regardless.

Investigating Suspected Money Laundering on Your Own: Tracing the Source of Funds and Payment Pathways

Anyone who is confronted with questions from a bank or allegations of money laundering can, as a first step, trace the source of their assets and the relevant payment channels on their own.

A structured review helps identify missing documents, unclear incoming payments, and conflicting information at an early stage.

What documents should be backed up?

Depending on the circumstances, the following may be particularly relevant:

• Bank statements,
• Payment receipts,
• Sales and loan agreements,
• invoices,
• Tax returns and tax assessment notices,
• Inheritance and gift tax documents,
• Corporate and investment documents,
• Sale documents,
• Stock exchange statements, as well as
• Wallet and crypto transaction histories.

In this context, one should not focus solely on the immediate origin of an individual incoming payment. In the case of longer transaction chains, it may instead be necessary to trace the flow of funds across multiple accounts, companies, or wallets.

When should a statement not be issued yet?

Internal communication and external communication must be kept separate.

Anyone who discovers discrepancies or cannot rule out a criminal liability risk should not rush to submit a detailed statement of facts to the bank or the authorities.

This is because a statement regarding the source of funds may later become relevant in criminal, tax criminal, or administrative fine proceedings.

Therefore, the first step should be to determine what information is actually necessary, which facts are certain, and whether one’s own reconstruction of events could give rise to criminal liability.

Documents and electronic data should be preserved and not altered or deleted at a later date.

Proof of Source of Funds for Banks

A statement of origin is intended to provide a clear explanation of where certain assets come from.

The types of documents required depend on the nature of the asset acquisition. Therefore, the documents required for the sale of a business may differ from those required for an inheritance, a loan repayment, a real estate sale, or the sale of cryptocurrency.

The key factor is not the number of documents. Rather, the documents should explain the business transaction, correspond to the actual payment methods, be chronologically traceable, and avoid contradictions.

On the other hand, the uncoordinated transmission of large amounts of data can raise additional questions.

Asset Freeze and Confiscation in Criminal Money Laundering Law

In addition to the specific charges against an individual, the preservation of assets often plays a central role in criminal money laundering law.

A court-ordered asset freeze can provide the basis for securing bank deposits, real estate, business interests, cryptocurrency holdings, and other assets.

The defense must then examine, in particular,

• which assets are affected,
• to whom these assets are legally attributable,
• how the investigative authorities calculate the amount of the arrest warrant,
• what connection is alleged to exist with the predicate offense,
• whether the rights of third parties are affected and
• what legal remedies are available.

For companies, extensive asset protection can also affect liquidity, payroll, and ongoing business relationships.

That is why the financial aspect of the proceedings should be part of the defense strategy from the very beginning.

Search Warrant for Money Laundering: What Should You Do Now?

During a search, those affected should remain calm, offer no resistance, and contact a criminal defense attorney as early as possible.

As a matter of principle, no statements regarding the allegation should be made without prior consultation.

The following points are particularly relevant to the defense:

• What does the search warrant say?
• What predicate offense do the investigating authorities allege?
• Which transactions or assets are the focus?
• What documents and data storage media were seized?
• Which accounts or assets are affected?
• Are there any further seizure or forfeiture measures pending?

After a search, the defense should determine as soon as possible what information the investigating authorities have obtained and what hypothesis underlies the proceedings.

Anti-Money Laundering Audits and Administrative Fine Proceedings

The Money Laundering Act requires certain companies and professional groups to implement risk-based preventive measures.

Regulatory authorities may verify whether a data subject has properly implemented these requirements.

The following, in particular, may be the subject of an examination:

• Risk analysis,
• internal safeguards,
• Customer due diligence obligations,
• Identification of beneficial owners,
• Stricter due diligence requirements,
• Documentation and Retention,
• Anti-Money Laundering Officer and Deputy,
• Training courses,
• internal reporting channels, as well as
• Handling Suspected Cases.

Not every organizational shortcoming automatically results in a fine.

Rather, it must be clarified what specific obligation applied, whether it was breached, and to whom—individually or organizationally—a possible breach should be attributed.

Administrative Fine Proceedings Under the Money Laundering Act

Section 56 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) contains numerous provisions defining administrative offenses.

These may include, for example, violations of organizational, due diligence, documentation, or reporting obligations.

In administrative fine proceedings, we examine in particular,

• whether the alleged breach of duty actually occurred,
• which person or business unit was responsible,
• whether intentional or negligent conduct can be proven,
• what control measures were already in place, and
• what economic and reputational consequences may result.

In addition to a fine, there may be other consequences. Subject to the statutory requirements, Section 57 of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) provides, in particular, for the public announcement of final measures and unappealable fine decisions.

This aspect should therefore be taken into account early on, especially for regulated or reputation-sensitive companies.

Responsibilities of Management and Anti-Money Laundering Officers

The appointment of an anti-money laundering officer does not automatically relieve management of its own responsibilities.

Conversely, not every organizational shortcoming can be attributed personally to the anti-money laundering officer.

In the event of a dispute, it is therefore necessary to reconstruct the events precisely,

• how responsibilities were assigned,
• who was authorized to make which decisions,
• what information was available to management,
• what control and escalation procedures were in place,
• what personnel and technical resources were available, and
• how the company responded to identified risks.

In this context, the interests of the company, management, the anti-money laundering officer, and other employees may diverge.

It is therefore particularly important to assess potential conflicts of interest at an early stage.

Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

Effective anti-money laundering measures are based on the company's actual risk.

Risk analysis and internal safeguards should therefore realistically reflect the business model, customer base, products, payment methods, regions, and distribution channels.

schirach.law provides legal advice, in particular, on

• Risk analyses,
• internal safeguards,
• Responsibilities and escalation procedures,
• Customer due diligence obligations,
• beneficial owners,
• politically exposed persons,
• Suspicious activity reporting processes,
• Preparation for GwG exams,
• Training and monitoring plans, as well as
• internal investigations.

Prevention and defense go hand in hand. This is because insights gained from supervisory and administrative penalty proceedings reveal the areas where organizational structures may later become relevant under criminal or administrative law.

Report of a Suspected Incident: Review, Decide, Document

Not every unusual transaction must automatically be reported to the FIU.

The decisive factor is whether there are facts that constitute a statutory reporting offense. In this regard, the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) does not require conclusive criminal proof of money laundering.

Obligated parties should therefore make the decision in a timely manner, based on the facts of the case, and in a transparent way, and should document it appropriately.

Failure to file a report, or filing an incorrect, incomplete, or late report, may in turn result in fines.

Internal Investigations into Suspected Money Laundering

Internal reports, transaction monitoring, media reports, or inquiries from banks and government agencies may indicate a potential money laundering issue.

A company must first determine:

• What actually happened?
• Which individuals and transactions are affected?
• What documents need to be backed up?
• Are there any reporting requirements?
• Are there any personal risks of criminal liability?
• Which government agencies or business partners have already been informed?
• How should we communicate internally and externally?

From the outset, internal investigations should take into account potential criminal, civil, and regulatory proceedings. After all, findings from an internal investigation may later become relevant to proceedings by regulatory authorities.

Money Laundering and Cryptocurrencies

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain transactions play a particularly important role in money laundering proceedings.

Investigative authorities, banks, and cryptocurrency service providers pay particular attention to, among other things, transactions to high-risk addresses, mixing services, decentralized exchanges, peer-to-peer transactions, and complex transaction chains.

However, such characteristics do not, on their own, prove money laundering.

While blockchain analyses can reveal transaction paths, this does not automatically indicate who actually controlled a wallet or what a person knew about the origin of the cryptocurrency assets.

For this reason, technical analysis, identification of individuals, and criminal assessment must be examined separately.

For more information, see the section on Cryptocurrency Criminal Law and Digital Assets.

Money Laundering and Criminal Tax Law

Criminal tax law cases may overlap with allegations of money laundering.

In this context, it is particularly important to distinguish between the possible prior tax offense, subsequent financial transactions, and the personal liability of the parties involved.

Not every transaction involving an asset that raises tax issues automatically constitutes an additional criminal offense under money laundering laws.

For this reason, the initial tax situation and subsequent transactions must be reconstructed separately and then evaluated together.

For more information, see the section on criminal tax law.

Money Laundering and White-Collar Crime Law

Money laundering cases are often linked to allegations of white-collar crime.

Possible predicate offenses may include, for example, fraud, embezzlement, corruption, or bankruptcy-related crimes.

It is therefore not enough for the defense to simply examine subsequent financial transactions. Equally important is the question of whether the alleged source of funds can actually be verified and which assets are said to have originated from it.

For more information, see the section on white-collar crime.

Defense in Criminal Money Laundering Law: Source, Conduct, and Knowledge

Money laundering cases often rely on extensive banking data, international information, reports of suspicious activity, and complex payment channels.

A defense in money laundering criminal law must therefore examine payment channels, possible predicate offenses, and the individual’s level of knowledge separately.

The focus is on three questions:

Source: From which unlawful act is the asset alleged to have originated?

Facts of the Case: What specific money laundering act is the client alleged to have committed?

Knowledge: What did the client know about the origin, or what is he alleged to have recklessly failed to recognize?

Subsequently, the status of the proceedings, the evidence, the preservation of assets, the economic consequences, and personal interests must be considered together.

Depending on the situation, it may be advisable to make an early statement. In other proceedings, however, it is advisable to first review the case file and exercise restraint.

The defense strategy is therefore based on the specific facts of the case and the current stage of the proceedings.

Criminal Law on Money Laundering in Munich and Nationwide

In the area of criminal money laundering law, schirach.law advises and defends clients nationwide from its Munich office.

These services are aimed in particular at private individuals, entrepreneurs, managing directors, executives, companies, and entities subject to the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG) facing complex criminal, regulatory, or administrative penalty matters.

In-person meetings can take place at our firm’s headquarters in Munich. In addition, we handle cases nationwide.

For more information on our areas of practice, see “Areas of Expertise” on the schirach.law website.

Frequently Asked Questions About Money Laundering and the Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG)

When does money laundering constitute a criminal offense?

Money laundering requires an asset derived from an unlawful act. This must be accompanied by an act or concealment covered by law. In addition, the subjective requirements of Section 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) must be met.

What is the penalty for money laundering?

Section 261, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the German Criminal Code (StGB) generally provides for imprisonment for up to five years or a fine. However, different sentencing ranges apply in certain cases. Particularly serious cases may be punishable by imprisonment for six months to ten years; reckless money laundering may be punishable by up to two years’ imprisonment or a fine.

Can any criminal offense serve as a predicate offense for money laundering?

In principle, since the introduction of the “all-crimes” approach, any unlawful act may be considered a predicate offense. Nevertheless, in each specific case, it must be determined whether the property in question actually derives from an unlawful act and whether the other requirements of § 261 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) are met.

Does a report of suspected wrongdoing mean that I am under investigation?

No. A suspicious activity report does not constitute a finding of criminal conduct. However, the FIU may analyze the facts of the case and forward relevant information to law enforcement agencies.

Why did my bank freeze my account?

Possible causes include an internal compliance audit, a suspicious transaction, a report of suspicious activity, regulatory action, or a court-ordered asset freeze. Therefore, the actual cause of the restriction should be clarified first.

Will my account be automatically activated after three business days?

No. The statutory waiting period following a suspicious activity report generally applies to the execution of the reported transaction. Other internal or regulatory measures may continue to apply independently of this.

Can I determine the source of my funds myself?

Yes. Bank statements, contracts, tax documents, payment receipts, business records, and, where applicable, blockchain data can help trace the origin and subsequent movement of assets.

However, if there is a risk of criminal liability, you should determine what information is actually required before providing a detailed explanation to banks or government agencies.

What should I do if I'm subjected to a search related to money laundering?

Remain calm, do not resist, and contact a criminal defense attorney as soon as possible. As a general rule, you should not make any statements regarding the allegations against you without first consulting an attorney.

Does every unusual transaction have to be reported to the FIU?

No. The decisive factor is not merely whether a transaction appears unusual. Rather, what matters is whether there are facts that meet the legal criteria for reporting. Obligated parties should therefore document their decision in a timely and transparent manner.

Does schirach.law represent clients only in Munich?

No. schirach.law is headquartered in Munich and advises and represents clients nationwide.

Confidential Contact

A suspicion of money laundering can quickly lead to criminal, financial, and reputational consequences.

Anyone who receives a subpoena, is subject to a search, has their account frozen, is required to provide proof of origin, or is facing an AMLA audit should therefore first clarify the allegations against them, the status of the proceedings, and the evidence in the case.

schirach.law provides legal advice and representation in Munich and throughout Germany.

Theatinerstraße 40–42 VII
80333 Munich

Phone: +49 89 443 695 60
Email: kanzlei@schirach.law