Civil asset tracing and recovery in Austria is not governed by a single, self contained statute but is instead built on an interlocking framework of general civil law, civil procedure, enforcement and insolvency law, supplemented by criminal law and a dense layer of European and international instruments that facilitate tracing and recovery of assets across borders.

The Austrian Civil Code (Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, ABGB) provides the foundational substantive law for civil asset recovery. Proprietary claims allow the true owner to vindicate misappropriated assets or their substitutes, subject to the limits of good‑faith acquisition; the law of delict and contractual liability supplies the basis for damage claims against wrongdoers and accomplices; and the law of unjust enrichment enables the reversal of value transfers lacking a legal ground, which is particularly important where establishing full tortious liability is evidentially challenging, such as in multi‑layered fraud schemes.

Procedural and enforcement aspects are governed primarily by the Austrian Civil Procedure Code (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) and the Enforcement Act (Exekutionsordnung, EO).

The Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung, IO) then adds a further layer for cases where the wrongdoer or an intermediary is insolvent. It contains rules on segregation and priority rights regarding the treatment of victims’ claims and on avoidance actions that allow suspect pre insolvency transactions to be unwound for the benefit of the creditor body.

Civil asset recovery in Austria is also shaped by its cross‑border dimension. Jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments are primarily determined by the Austrian Jurisdictional Norm (Jurisdiktionsnorm, JN) and, within the European Union, by the Brussels Ia Regulation. These instruments are of particular importance where assets are held abroad or through foreign entities, as they enable Austrian claimants to obtain titles capable of recognition across the EU and to rely on standardised procedures for enforcement in other Member States. Conversely, foreign victims may use these rules to access Austrian courts or to enforce foreign judgments against assets located in Austria. In parallel, rules on applicable law and cross‑border cooperation influence the design of recovery strategies, especially where competing proceedings in several jurisdictions are pending.

Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 establishing the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) allows creditors, under certain conditions, to freeze bank accounts in other Member States at an early stage, which can be an important adjunct to domestic interim measures.

EU Insolvency Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2015/848). While not an “asset‑recovery” instrument in a narrow sense, it is central for civil tracing and collection in cross‑border insolvencies, coordinating main/secondary proceedings and recognition of insolvency‑related measures across the EU.

Although civil asset recovery is conceptually distinct from criminal confiscation and forfeiture, criminal law and criminal procedure play a practically significant supporting role. The Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO) provide for seizure, freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime and instrumentalities used in their commission.

The UN Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) and the UN Convention against Transnational Organized Crime (UNTOC / Palermo Convention), both ratified by Austria, provide the international backbone for mutual legal assistance, confiscation and the tracing and return of proceeds of crime.

Austrian law permits civil recovery proceedings against a broad range of asset types. This includes immovable and movable assets, monetary claims and bank-related assets.

Business interests and financial instruments also fall squarely within the scope of civil recovery. Shares in corporations, partnership interests, silent participations and similar equity‑like instruments, as well as securities and other financial instruments, can be both the substantive object of recovery claims and the target of enforcement measures.

Intellectual property rights (such as patents, trademarks and copyrights) and associated licence claims are enforceable and can be monetised for the benefit of creditors or victims, either directly or via the attachment of receivables arising from IP‑based business models.

Cryptocurrencies and digital assets are increasingly recognised as capable of being subject to civil recovery, though their legal classification remains somewhat unsettled. Austrian courts and legal scholarship generally treat cryptocurrencies as intangible assets capable of ownership and therefore susceptible to civil claims. The effectiveness of recovery in this area depends on access to wallets, private keys and intermediaries (custodians, exchanges), but ongoing regulatory developments at EU and national level are increasing transparency and traceability.

The primary civil law causes of action in Austria include:

Contractual claims: Where assets have been misappropriated in breach of contractual obligations, the injured party may, depending on the circumstances of the case, challenge the contract and/or recover damages. The victim can claim the return of the property in rem, which has priority over competing insolvency creditors.

Damage claims (Torts): Other non-contractual unlawful acts may entitle the injured party to assert claims for damages. Several tortfeasors cooperating jointly and intentionally are jointly and severally liable for resulting damage, including assistants and instigators.

Unjust enrichment: Where a person has been enriched at another’s expense without legal basis, the claimant may recover the enrichment. This is particularly relevant where contractual or tortious claims are unavailable.

Vindication: The owner of an asset may bring a vindicatory action in order to recover possession of a specific asset from any person who is in possession without legal title.

The primary civil law procedural mechanisms for asset recovery in Austria include:

Execution for security refers to execution of an interim measure on the condition that the applicant sufficiently substantiates the claim. However, the lack of such substantiation may be replaced by the applicant paying security into court covering any potential damages to the respondent.

Interim injunctions are types of preventive measures granted to ensure immediate legal protection before, during or after trial. There are different types of interim injunctions: for the purpose of monetary claims, other claims and a right or legal relationship.

Criminal confiscation or forfeiture regimes:

Both civil and criminal law provide for provisional protective measures – the interim injunction in civil law corresponds functionally to seizure in criminal law. The key difference, however, lies in the fact that civil remedies are sought by the injured party themselves and serve directly to recover their assets, whereas criminal measures are initiated by the public prosecutor’s office and primarily serve to preserve evidence and to enable the state to confiscate proceeds.

Seizure (Sicherstellung) is the provisional establishment of control over objects, assets, and data, the temporary prohibition on the release of objects or other assets to third parties (third-party prohibition), and the temporary prohibition on the sale or pledge of such objects and assets.

In contrast, a confiscation (Beschlagnahme) refers to a judicial decision ordering the establishment or continuation of a seizure, and a judicial prohibition on the sale, encumbrance, or pledge of real property or rights entered in a public register.

Forfeiture (Verfall) targets illicitly acquired assets, aiming to disgorge profits from illegal activity. While confiscation and forfeiture are final, seizure is a provisional measure during investigation for evidence or to prepare for final forfeiture.

If, in the event of forfeiture, the victim has obtained an enforceable title of execution for their compensation and this compensation has not yet been paid, the victim has the right to request satisfaction out of the assets received by the Federation through the forfeiture.

Standing to initiate civil asset recovery proceedings depends on the underlying legal basis (civil, corporate, or insolvency law).

Private parties: Natural persons and corporations whose assets have been misappropriated or who have suffered loss may bring civil claims to recover those assets or their value.

Trustees: Trustees have standing where they themselves hold the right in their own name or are expressly authorised to enforce the beneficiary’s right.

Insolvency practitioners: In insolvency proceedings, the court‑appointed insolvency administrator (and not individual creditors) generally has exclusive standing to pursue avoidance, claw‑back, and other recovery actions for the collective benefit of the estate and its creditors.

Secured creditors with separation rights: Creditors holding separation rights may still demand the return of identifiable assets that do not fall into the insolvency estate.

State bodies as civil claimants: Public entities may pursue civil claims, especially damages arising from corruption or fraud, on behalf of the state or public institutions.

Austria has a dedicated state attorney’s office, the „Finanzprokuratur“, which represents the Austrian state before courts and authorities. For Austrian governmental bodies representation before the ordinary courts is mandatory through the „Finanzprokuratur“. In cross-border civil matters, it typically acts as lead counsel/case owner and engages foreign counsel as local co-counsel by way of substitution.

Asset recovery of criminal proceeds, including conviction-independent confiscation in defined circumstances, is ordered by criminal courts within criminal procedure. Public prosecutors lead such applications. The criminal-procedure track is distinct from civil recovery. Damaged parties are entitled to participate in such criminal procedures to claim damages from the perpetrator.

Austrian civil law generally allows foreign plaintiffs – whether individuals or legal persons, including foreign states – access to Austrian courts. Foreign states are only immune where they act with sovereign authority. The key criterion applied by the Austrian Supreme Court is whether the act could equally be performed by a private person; if so, immunity does not apply and proceedings are “in principle permitted” against the foreign state or its state institutions, including central banks.

Austria is a party to the European Convention on State Immunity, which confirms this restrictive approach and is applied where both states to the dispute are contracting parties. Immunity can still arise at the enforcement stage: enforcement against assets used for sovereign purposes is generally barred, and Austrian courts must consider immunity ex officio when recognising or enforcing foreign judgments against states.

The common‑law doctrine of forum non conveniens is not part of Austrian or EU civil‑procedure law; Austrian and EU courts generally may not decline jurisdiction simply because another forum would be more convenient, especially where Brussels I Regulation (Recast) applies.

Austrian law does not recognise forum non conveniens. Where no other head of jurisdiction is available, Austrian national law provides a residual assets forum that permits pecuniary claims to be brought before the court of the place where the defendant’s assets or the object claimed are located. While exceptional access to Austrian courts may be available in narrow scenarios to avert a denial of justice, the principal residual basis in practice is this codified assets forum.

Austrian law maintains a strict principle of separate legal personality for corporate entities, including limited liability companies (GmbH) and stock corporations (AG). Piercing the corporate veil is therefore regarded as an exceptional remedy and is generally confined to situations in which the corporate form has been clearly abused, for example through deliberate undercapitalisation, commingling of company and shareholder assets, or the use of the entity as a mere façade to evade obligations or defraud creditors. In such cases, courts may look through the corporate structure and extend liability to controlling shareholders or directors where this is necessary to prevent an abuse of rights and protect creditors.

Trusts are not recognised as a domestic legal institution under Austrian substantive law, so there is no “Austrian trust” in the common law sense. Nonetheless, Austria has ratified the 1985 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, with the result that foreign trusts validly constituted under their governing law are recognised for conflict‑of‑laws purposes.

Foundations created also enjoy their own legal personality and are treated as independent asset‑holding entities. Where assets are held by a foundation, recovery will typically require a direct claim against the foundation itself, based on whatever civil cause of action is available (for example, unjust enrichment, avoidance in insolvency). In situations where the foundation has been misused as a vehicle to shield assets from creditors or public‑law claims, courts may be receptive to arguments analogous to veil‑piercing, focusing on abuse of the legal form and the role of those who effectively control the foundation.

In purely domestic cases, the jurisdiction of Austrian courts is determined by the JN, which lays down the general and special rules for all types of courts. In most international civil and commercial matters, jurisdiction is governed by Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I Regulation (Recast)), which likewise applies across the Austrian court system; which specific court is competent in a given case will then depend on additional factors such as the nature of the dispute (for example, whether it falls within the competence of the commercial courts to hear a case).

The Lugano Convention 2007 extends a Brussels‑ I Regulation (Recast)- type regime on jurisdiction and enforcement to judgments between EU Member States and EFTA parties, which is important when tracing/recovering assets held in those jurisdictions.

As a general rule, Austrian courts have jurisdiction where the defendant is domiciled or has its seat in Austria. In addition, jurisdiction may be based on other connecting factors, including the place of performance of a contract, the place where the damage occurred or may occur, or the location of real estate. Under Austrian national law, if no other ground of jurisdiction is available, a pecuniary claim may also be brought before the court of the place where assets of the defendant or the object claimed are located.

Furthermore, if proceedings with an international dimension are pending before Austrian courts, the Austrian International Private Law including EU regulations (most notably the regulations on the law applicable to contractual or non-contractual obligations) is applied in order to determine the applicable substantive law. Initially, parties can choose the law governing their contractual relationship. In the absence of a choice of law (e.g., the law applicable for an obligation arising out of damages claims) generally it is the law of the country in which the damage occurred.

Enforcement proceedings in Austria are governed by the Austrian Enforcement Act, and the applicable regime depends on whether the judgment originates from an EU Member State or from a third country.

Under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), judgments from other EU Member States are directly enforceable without the need for a declaration of enforceability. A judgment rendered in one member state is automatically recognised in the others without the need for a separate recognition procedure, although recognition may still be refused on limited grounds, such as a manifest breach of Austrian ordre public. For these purposes, preliminary injunctions, which are particularly significant in asset‑tracing and preservation, are also treated as “judgments” capable of recognition and enforcement in Austria, where the issuing court has jurisdiction on the merits and appropriate procedural safeguards, such as prior notice and service, have been observed.

Foreign judgments from non‑EU states can – if there is not a bilateral or multilateral treatment – only be enforced in Austria after they have been declared enforceable by the competent Austrian court. This declaration of enforceability is granted if the judgment is enforceable in the state of origin and if reciprocity is formally guaranteed, typically on the basis of bilateral or multilateral treaties or through reciprocity regulations. If these requirements are met, the foreign enforcement title must be declared enforceable provided that it also satisfies the formal requirements under Austrian law and no grounds for refusal apply. Even where these requirements are satisfied, the court may refuse the declaration on specific grounds, including where the judgment or its enforcement would infringe the ordre public.

Austrian courts and authorities provide judicial assistance in aid of both civil and criminal proceedings abroad. In civil matters, cooperation is primarily governed by the EU Evidence Regulation and the Hague Evidence Convention. Within the EU, requests for the taking of evidence in another Member State, or by a court of another Member State, are sent directly from the requesting court to the court addressed, which must execute the request without delay and, in principle, within 90 days of receipt.

Outside the scope of the EU Evidence Regulation, judicial assistance is also generally available upon request and is carried out in accordance with Austrian rules on the taking of evidence. However, Austrian courts must refuse assistance where the requested measure would be impermissible under Austrian law (for example, because it violates fundamental procedural principles or mandatory provisions).

The service of documents on a party located outside Austria is affected either under Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (for service within the European Union), or, for non EU states, under the Hague Service Convention or applicable bilateral treaties. Austrian law supplements these regimes by allowing postal service in a number of states. Where this is not permitted, service is carried out via diplomatic channels (embassies or consulates).

Austrian courts may issue EAPOs in support of claims pending before Austrian courts.

Austrian courts may grant a series of preventive measures to secure the enforceability of an eventual judgment, which may involve freezing a particular state of affairs or assets. As with other interim injunctions, such measures may be requested before proceedings are commenced, while they are pending, or after trial. The competent court to hear such an application is the court where the substantive proceedings are pending or, when such a measure is sought pre-action, the competent court is the District Court of the domicile of the respondent.

Interim injunctions securing monetary and non-monetary claims may be granted where it appears probable that, absent the requested measure, the respondent would frustrate or significantly hinder enforcement of the claim (for example by damaging, destroying, or transferring assets), or where the respondent has no assets in Austria and enforcement is not otherwise guaranteed under European or international law. For monetary claims, the applicant must additionally demonstrate both, substantive entitlement to the claim and a legitimate interest in the disposal of the claim.

Preventive injunctions in respect of monetary claims:

• the deposit or administration of movable goods by the court;
• the prohibition on the disposal or pledging of movable assets;
• the prohibition on third parties from providing payments to a person;
• the administration of a property; and
• the prohibition on the disposal and pledging of property or certain rights arising from a registration in the Land Register; and

In respect of a non-monetary claim, the court may order all the above as well as orders requiring:

• the applicant to retain custody of the respondent’s property / asset, or;
• the respondent to take action to preserve the property / asset or prohibit him from taking actions that may adversely affect such property / asset.

In addition, asset attachment orders or freezing orders over bank accounts can also be issued in connection with an application for the preliminary taking of evidence. These measures constitute forms of interim relief aimed at avoiding the loss of evidence, preventing difficulties in using such evidence, or addressing situations in which the availability of evidence is uncertain.

Practical effectiveness: The practical effectiveness of these measures can generally be considered high. However, in practice, Austrian courts are rather reluctant to grant preliminary relief. The applicant must demonstrate (with more than 50 percent credibility) that a claim exists and that its enforcement would be jeopardized without the interim injunction (specific threat). Following the Austrian courts, a subjective endangerment is established in cases where it is obvious that without a preliminary injunction the damaging party will damage, destroy, hide or move away assets in order to hinder the claimant from pursuing its claim. In general, the latest behaviour of the defendant, as well as the specific circumstances of the case, are decisive. While the evidentiary threshold is lowered to “more than 50%” as opposed to “high likelihood”, which is applicable to the main proceedings, courts often are reluctant to acknowledge the specific threat / subjective endangerment of the claim. The most common reasons for rejection are the failure to prove the credibility of the specific threat and disproportionate impairment of the respondent.

An interim injunction can be obtained ex parte (without prior hearing of the opponent), provided the court can be convinced that prior notice may jeopardize the effectiveness of the preliminary measure(s). Interim relief can usually be obtained within a few days up to two weeks, or in highly urgent cases within 24 to 48 hours.

If no main proceedings are pending (yet), the court will order a certain time frame to initiate such proceedings. A commonly used deadline is three months.

Important to note: Applicants face a no-fault damage claim if the claim in the main proceedings fails or the applicant fails to initiate main proceedings within the deadline set by the court, or if the interim injunction turns out to be unjustified for any reason.

Austrian civil procedure offers limited tools for disclosure or tracing tools and relies heavily on interim measures and enforcement mechanisms.

There is no general “pre-action discovery”, the available pre-litigation tools are limited to:

• Procedure for evidence preservation (Sections 384 et seq. ZPO): allows evidence to be preserved if there is concern that it will no longer be available at a later date. However, this instrument is primarily focused on preserving physical evidence and not on tracing assets;
• Interim injunctions according to Sections 378 et seq. EO (see detailed answer to Question 10); These measures allow courts to secure claims or assets on a provisional basis in order to prevent frustration of enforcement, for example by freezing assets or prohibiting their disposal.
• Publicly accessible register searches: Austria provides for a number of registers. Their search can provide helpful information. However, for certain registers, restrictions apply as long as no enforceable title exists.
• cooperation with investigating authorities in the context of criminal proceedings (they have a wide range of investigative measures at their disposal; e.g. seizure and confiscation, disclosure on bank transactions through the lifting of banking secrecy, raids, surveillance measures, examination of witnesses and pre-trial detention).

To trace, locate and identify assets to be recovered, the involvement of professional investigators is often helpful. This not only refers to private investigators gathering evidence and private experts analysing money flows, but also to attorneys. In Austria, lawyers have access to a range of registers (Beneficial Owners Register Act, company register, land register, central population register) and open source data. Lawyers who specialise in asset tracing and recovery can connect information efficiently and decide on the necessary measures to collect crucial evidence to build a case.

Austrian civil law provides for remedies aimed at the restitution of benefits and physical objects. Where the injured party has transferred an object to, for example, a fraudulent counterparty, it may assert a claim for restitution of that object in its capacity as original owner against any current possessor who cannot demonstrate a proper chain of title.

In addition, a party can file an actio publicana, which requires the damaged party to merely prove a stronger or more legitimate possession than the current possessor. However, if the possessor obtained the object against payment and based on a valid title in good faith, the damaged party may not succeed with his or her claim.

Moreover, the damaged party can also base its claims on the provision of unjust enrichment. Where assets have been transferred without legal basis, the claimant may seek restitution through an enrichment claim. This again would entitle the damaged party to receive back its loss in natura. In addition, the damaged party has the right to receive a monetary substitute.

In cases of civil fraud where a contract has been concluded, the injured party is additionally entitled to seek annulment of the contract. The claim must outline the unlawful and intentional deception by the fraudulent party, including that the fraudulent party acted with intent, at least in the form of dolus eventualis, with respect to causing a misrepresentation to the other party; that the injured party relied on this misrepresentation; and the causal nexus between the misrepresentation and the conclusion of the contract. The limitation period for civil fraud claims is 30 years from the conclusion of the contract.

As a rule, the statute of limitations (Verjährung) is 30 years. However, through numerous exceptions, most claims are subject to a shorter period of three years. The statue of limitations generally commences when a right could have first been exercised.

Contractual claims: The general statute of limitations for contractual claims is three years from the due date of the claim (§ 1486 ABGB). Claims arising from commercial transactions are also subject to a three-year statute of limitations.

Tortious claims: Claims for damages regarding torts are subject to a three-year limitation period from the date the claimant became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the damage and the identity of the wrongdoer (§ 1489 ABGB). An objective statute of limitations of 30 years applies from the date of the wrongful act.

Unjust enrichment: Enrichment claims are generally subject the objective statute of limitations of 30 years, and subject to a three-year period from knowledge of the enrichment and the identity of the enriched party.

Vindicatory claims: Ownership claims are not subject to the statute of limitations, though the defence of acquisitive prescription (Ersitzung) may apply where a third party has possessed the property in good faith for the requisite period (three years for movables, 30 years for immovables).

In Austrian civil proceedings, the applicable standard of proof is “high probability”. “Absolute certainty” is not required. Having regarded all the evidence, the judge must be satisfied that the facts asserted are more likely true than not.

The civil standard of proof is lower than the criminal standard of proof. Criminal proceedings operate on the “in dubio pro reo” principle, requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt for conviction.

In Austrian civil proceedings, the plaintiff or the party seeking to establish a fact has the burden of proof.

There is no general shift of the burden of proof and no “unexplained wealth” presumptions comparable to those certain common law jurisdictions. However, where a party fails to comply with a court order to produce documents, the court may draw adverse when weighing the evidence.

In enforcement proceedings, if a defendant refuses to testify or disclose assets without sufficient reason, the court may take this into account in its decision making process.

Limitation: In cases where a claimant’s civil claims are already time-barred, the opposing party may raise objections based on the statute of limitations. As a result, the court is obliged to exclude the civil lawsuit, as time-barred claims cannot be decided by courts. However, as Austrian civil courts do not examine a statute of limitations ex officio, time-barred claims may nevertheless result in enforceable judgments in cases where no objections are raised in the proceedings

Although Austrian law does not recognise laches in its common law form, substantial delay in enforcement can still play a role, for example by making it more plausible that limitation has expired, that the debtor has changed position in reliance on apparent inaction, or that evidence has become unreliable.

Change of position/loss of enrichment: in enrichment‑based claims, the respondent may argue that any enrichment has ceased or been reduced (for example, because the benefit was irreversibly consumed or passed on in good faith). To the extent there is no remaining enrichment, restitution can be rejected or limited.

Good faith acquisition: A central defence in proprietary recovery is that the respondent acquired the asset in good faith, for consideration and via a legally recognised mode of transfer. In such a case, the claimant’s vindication or restitution claim can be cut off, because ownership or an equivalent protected position has passed to the respondent.

Third parties that hold interests in assets targeted by civil asset recovery proceedings under Austrian law can protect their rights through procedural and substantive mechanisms.

If a third party can demonstrate a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings, it may apply to participate alongside one of the existing parties as an intervening party (Nebenintervention). Third party intervention can also be initiated by one of the parties involved. To be accepted as an intervening party, the third party must establish a legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings. Depending on the potential impact of the judgment, the third party will either be granted full party status or be allowed to participate with limited procedural rights.

In addition, where enforcement measures are directed against assets in which a third party asserts a preferential right, that party may bring a third party objection action. The aim of this action is to obtain a judicial declaration that the seized assets do not belong to the debtor and must therefore be released from enforcement.

Beyond the action for recovery of ownership (see Question 12) Austrian law also affords substantive protection to good faith acquirers. A bona fide purchaser for value of movable property can, under the rules on good faith acquisition, obtain valid title even if the transferor was not the true owner, and is then shielded from vindicatory claims brought by the original owner seeking recovery of the asset. This protection of good faith reliance is particularly relevant where misappropriated assets have already been passed on in the chain of transactions.

Finally, in an insolvency context, third parties with proprietary rights in assets that have found their way into the debtor’s estate such as retention of title arrangements or functionally trust like structures may assert segregation or priority rights in the insolvency proceedings. By invoking these rights, they can have the relevant assets separated from the estate or satisfied in priority, thereby ensuring that their proprietary interests prevail over the claims of unsecured creditors.

Austrian legal literature unanimously qualifies crypto assets as things within the meaning of Section 285 of the ABGB. To be qualified as a “thing”, a certain minimum degree of controllability is required. Without controllability, an assignment of legal goods to legal subjects is not conceivable. In the case of crypto assets, it is the immutability of the blockchain and the necessity of a private key that make the phenomenon controllable.

Although, from a legal point of view, there are partially differing opinions as to whether cryptocurrencies should be classified as tangible or intangible things, it is recognised that cryptocurrencies are transferable in accordance with the general provisions on the acquisition of ownership. For the transfer of a cryptocurrency, therefore – as elsewhere in the legal system – a so‑called title (for example, a purchase agreement) and a so‑called mode (for example, transfer to a specific address) are generally required. Cryptocurrencies can therefore, in principle, be the object of contracts as well as of sale, exchange or pledge.

Under Austrian civil law, interim relief over digital assets (including cryptocurrencies held on‑exchange or in self‑custody) is obtained primarily through interim injunctions as set out in the EO. There are, however, currently no specific interim measures tailored exclusively to digital assets.

Since the entry into force of the 2024 Criminal Procedure Amendment Act on 1 January 2025, the Code of Criminal Procedure contains an explicit legal basis for direct access to crypto assets in the context of criminal investigations, which brought about a comprehensive reform of the provisions on seizure and confiscation. This reform was intended, in particular, to modernise and systematise the rules on securing data carriers and data, to clarify how wallets, private keys and other access credentials can be seized or otherwise secured, and to ensure that law enforcement authorities are able to effectively immobilise or realise crypto assets in the course of criminal proceedings.

Since 1 January 2026, the Crypto Reporting Act (Krypto‑MPfG) has provided an autonomous statutory framework by which the Austrian legislator implements Directive (EU) 2023/2226 at national level and establishes the legal basis for the mandatory automatic exchange of information regarding reportable crypto‑assets. The Krypto‑MPfG creates a system of obligations for providers of crypto‑asset services, in particular obligations relating to registration, reporting and due diligence, which are designed to ensure the complete and timely transmission of information. Compliance with these obligations is safeguarded by a system of sanctions under financial criminal law. In addition, the Krypto‑MPfG establishes a legal framework for the provision of administrative assistance between Austria and third countries within the scope of the global standard for the automatic exchange of information in tax matters with respect to information reported by reporting providers of crypto‑asset services.

Austria follows the ‘loser pays’ principle. The losing party must bear the costs of the proceedings, including court fees and attorney fees of the winning party according to a tariff.

Note that in practice, in complex asset recovery cases involving considerable investigative effort, the difference between the costs awarded on the basis of the tariff and the actual costs can be significant. Therefore, only a portion of the legal fees can be recovered.

Third party litigation funding is generally considered admissible and is not specifically regulated by statute; the Supreme Court has confirmed in principle that it is permissible, provided the funder does not effectively act as a “legal supporter” within the meaning of the quota litis prohibition and does not control the conduct of the proceedings. Typical models see an external funder cover the (full or partial) costs of a legal dispute and bear the financial risk of losing the case. If the legal dispute is successful, the litigation financier receives an agreed share of the proceeds (often around or more than 35%).

By contrast, pure contingency or damages based fee agreements for lawyers (quota litis), for example a remuneration consisting solely of a percentage of the amount recovered, are prohibited and void. However, in Austria, attorneys are allowed to charge success-based fees in the form of a premium on the basic fee, but not as a percentage of the amount in dispute (quota litis prohibition). The success fee must not be unreasonably high in relation to the service provided. The quota litis prohibition does not apply to litigation financiers, as long as they do not provide legal advice.

Legal expense insurance is widely available in Austria and may cover the costs of civil asset recovery proceedings, subject to policy terms.

Foreign claimants (who do not have their habitual residence in Austria) must, upon the defendant’s request, provide security for the costs of the proceedings.

The opening of insolvency proceedings under the IO triggers an automatic stay of individual enforcement measures against the debtor. From that point on, the debtor’s assets form the insolvency estate and creditors can generally only pursue their claims within the collective insolvency framework rather than through individual enforcement. Proprietary claims, however, retain a privileged position: where a transfer of ownership has been induced through deception, it is voidable, so that the victim can assert an in rem claim to the return of the property; such a segregation claim primes competing insolvency creditors because the asset is not treated as part of the estate but as belonging to the victim.

A further refinement is that if a victim’s assets can be distinguished within a mixed mass and quantity ownership is identifiable (for example, in a fungible pool of goods or funds), Austrian law allows an in rem claim for a separate share in the mixed assets, which again operates with precedence over ordinary insolvency creditors.

By contrast, where tracing into specific assets is no longer possible because, for instance, the fraudster has sold the goods on or money has been mixed into a general account from which various payments have been made, the victim’s position is reduced to in personam claims, typically for unjust enrichment and/or damages. These claims must then be filed as ordinary insolvency claims and are satisfied only pro rata with other unsecured creditors without any priority.

In parallel, secured creditors or those holding rights in rem over assets within the estate can rely on segregation (Aussonderungsrecht) or separation/priority rights (Absonderungsrecht), which ensure that either the asset is removed from the estate altogether, or the secured creditor is paid with priority from its realisation proceeds, with any surplus remaining for the general body of creditors.

Civil asset recovery strategies must therefore be closely aligned with insolvency law: wherever possible, victims will seek to preserve or construct proprietary positions, for example through avoidance of deceptive transfers and quantum vindication of a co-ownership share in order to stand outside or above the collective pool of unsecured creditors, while creditors who cannot do so will focus on timely filing their claims and, where the statutory conditions are met, pursuing liability of managing directors for delayed filing to recoup losses caused by the deterioration of the estate.

Claims for damages or monetary restitution are unsecured claims and must be filed in the insolvency proceedings. Third parties can acquire a fraudulently obtained item in good faith from a fraudster. In such a case, the victim is left with a claim for damages and/or unjust enrichment against the fraudster, a claim which does not take precedence in insolvency. Where the claimant can establish a proprietary interest in specific assets (for example through tracing or quota share in a mixed mass), they may seek segregation of those assets from the insolvency estate, receiving them in full. The victim can claim the return of the property in rem, which takes precedence over competing insolvency creditors.

Insolvency avoidance actions serve a different function. They allow the insolvency administrator to challenge pre insolvency transactions that have prejudiced the creditor body. Successful avoidance actions do not “restore” assets to an individual victim but bring them back into the estate for the benefit of all creditors.

In Austria, the main obstacles are limited pre-trial discovery and strict bank secrecy. Asset disclosure proceedings against the debtor are mainly available in enforcement proceedings. One possible reform would be to establish extended pre-litigation disclosure rights, such as Norwich Pharmacal-type orders, to obtain information about assets before or during proceedings. At least in cases where the court can be convinced with more likely than not, that a criminal offence is the basis of a damage claim, the law should allow for a pre-trial discovery and/or document production orders with adverse inferences to be drawn if the opponent fails to comply.

Another option would be to extend the scope of the European Account Preservation Order Regulation to freeze bank accounts (Regulation (EU) No 655/2014) at an earlier stage of proceedings.

Key practical challenges in asset tracing and recovery under Austrian civil law largely mirror international experience, but are partly intensified by specific features of Austrian banking, procedure and insolvency practice.

First, complex and frequently cross‑border structures pose a central difficulty. Fraudsters often route funds via multi‑layer corporate chains, offshore vehicles and accounts in several jurisdictions, so Austrian practitioners must combine Austrian remedies with foreign assistance, conflict‑of‑laws analysis and recognition/enforcement of foreign measures. This increases cost, delay and coordination effort, and any weak link in another jurisdiction can break the tracing chain.

Second, despite gradual softening, banking secrecy and access limitations remain a practical obstacle. Bank account information is only accessible under strict conditions, typically via courts, prosecutors or tax authorities, and the account register gives only limited data. Practitioners and insolvency administrators often depend on the debtor’s cooperation, creditor tips or lengthy court processes to identify accounts and movements. This can create “blind spots” that debtors exploit, and even after identification, obtaining detailed transaction data still requires judicial approval and can be time‑consuming.

Third, non‑cooperative intermediaries and gatekeepers (banks, service providers, platform operators) can significantly delay or frustrate recovery. While AML (Anti-Money laundering) and KYC (Know Your Costumer) and reporting duties have been tightened and supervised by the Austrian Financial Market Authority (FMA), civil claimants nonetheless often experience slow responses, formalistic objections and data‑protection‑based push‑back when seeking information or freezing measures in support of civil claims. Coordinating civil steps with criminal investigations (which may have stronger investigative powers but different priorities) is likewise challenging, particularly where criminal authorities focus on punishment rather than maximising victim recovery.

Fourth, practitioners must deal with timing and insolvency‑related complications. By the time fraud is detected, the debtor is often insolvent or close to it. Assets may already have been dissipated, mixed into general accounts or shifted to third parties, making strict tracing and proprietary claims hard to sustain.

Finally, cost, risk and information asymmetry remain structural constraints. Effective asset tracing, especially across borders, typically requires multi‑jurisdictional teams, forensic work and interim measures, which entail high upfront expense and exposure to adverse costs under the Austrian “loser pays” regime. Many victims lack the resources or risk appetite to pursue complex recovery strategies to the end, which in turn reduces deterrence and encourages ever more sophisticated concealment techniques.

Choice of civil cause of action

Selecting the appropriate civil cause of action in an Austrian asset recovery case requires careful evaluation of the available facts, the nature of the assets to be recovered, and the procedural posture of the matter.

A vindicatory claim is generally preferable where a specific asset can be identified and traced to the wrongdoer or a subsequent possessor, as it offers the prospect of full recovery rather than merely a damages award that may prove uncollectable. However, the claimant must be able to demonstrate an unbroken chain of title and overcome any potential defence of good-faith acquisition by a third party. A bona fide purchaser for value of movable property can, under the rules on good-faith acquisition, obtain valid title even if the transferor was not the true owner, and is then shielded from vindicatory claims brought by the original owner. Where the asset has been mixed with other property or converted into a different form, the vindicatory route may become impractical, and the claimant will need to consider unjust enrichment or damages claims instead.

Unjust enrichment claims can be attractive where the legal basis for a transfer has failed or never existed, and where full tortious liability may be difficult to establish on the evidence, which is particularly important in multi-layered fraud schemes. The main drawback however, is that recovery is limited to the remaining enrichment. The respondent may argue that any enrichment has ceased or been reduced (for example, because the benefit was irreversibly consumed or passed on in good faith), and to the extent there is no remaining enrichment, restitution can be rejected or limited.

Tortious damages claims require proof of breach, fault or intent and causation. If someone commits a crime, any injured person may make a claim for damages provided that the criminal norm violated protects their interests. Several tortfeasors cooperating jointly and intentionally are jointly and severally liable for resulting damage, including assistants and instigators (Section 1302 ABGB). This joint liability provision is particularly valuable from a strategic point of view, as it makes it possible to hold intermediaries and behind-the-scenes figures liable.

In cases of civil fraud where a contract has been concluded, the injured party is entitled to seek annulment of the contract. The claim must outline the unlawful and intentional deception by the fraudulent party, the injured party’s reliance on this misrepresentation, and the causal nexus between the misrepresentation and the conclusion of the contract. The limitation period for civil fraud claims is 30 years from the conclusion of the contract.

In practice, Austrian claimants frequently plead multiple causes of action in the alternative, which is expressly permitted. Doing so hedges against evidentiary gaps and preserves flexibility as the case develops.

Parallel Proceedings: Criminal, Regulatory and Insolvency
Civil recovery frequently runs alongside criminal investigations, regulatory enforcement or insolvency proceedings, and practitioners must coordinate their strategy accordingly.

Criminal proceedings:

Austrian criminal procedure does not provide for a formal stay of civil proceedings merely because a criminal investigation is pending. Civil courts may, however, suspend proceedings at their discretion if the outcome of criminal proceedings is relevant to the civil determination. For instance, where findings of fact in the criminal case would have evidential significance in the civil claim.

A criminal conviction eases civil proceedings significantly, as it has binding effect; the victim then needs to prove only causality and the quantum of the damage.

Practitioners should consider whether involvement in the criminal process may advance the civil recovery. Austrian law allows victims to join ongoing criminal proceedings as private party joinders (Privatbeteiligte) and seek compensational damages. There are significant advantages to joining criminal proceedings, such as lower cost risk, access to evidence and security measures such as the confiscation of assets.

Regulatory proceedings:

Where asset recovery intersects with regulatory enforcement, such as investigations by the FMA into market abuse, AML breaches or other financial misconduct, the civil claimant may benefit from any findings or sanctions imposed, but again there is no automatic stay of civil proceedings.

While AML/KYC and reporting duties have been tightened and supervised by the FMA, civil claimants nonetheless often experience slow responses, formalistic objections and data-protection-based push-back when seeking information or freezing measures in support of civil claims. The timing and sequencing of regulatory action can, however, influence tactical decisions. Public enforcement action may create reputational pressure that encourages settlement or may surface evidence that strengthens the civil case.

Sanctions Regimes

One important development is the Austrian Sanctions Act 2024 (Sanktionengesetz 2024 – SanktG), which modernised the domestic framework for implementing EU and international sanctions. Since January 2026, the FMA acts as the central supervisory authority for financial sanctions compliance in the financial sector, replacing the previous fragmented supervisory structure.

In practice, sanctions regimes, particularly those introduced in response to Russia’s war against Ukraine, increasingly affect civil asset recovery. Where assets are subject to EU restrictive measures, they are frozen and may not be transferred, disposed of or made available to or for the benefit of designated persons or entities.

For civil claimants, this has a direct impact on enforcement. Frozen assets cannot be the subject of successful enforcement measures without prior regulatory authorisation to release them. A civil claimant who has obtained a judgment or enforceable title against a sanctioned party must therefore coordinate with the FMA to seek an exemption before enforcement can proceed. This introduces an additional layer of regulatory procedure into what would otherwise be a straightforward enforcement process. Conversely, the existence of a sanctions freeze may serve to preserve assets that might otherwise have been dissipated, providing a form of de facto interim protection, albeit one that benefits all potential claimants rather than conferring priority on any individual creditor.

Beneficial Ownership Transparency

Another relevant development concerns the Beneficial Owners Register Act (Wirtschaftliche Eigentümer Registergesetz – WiEReG), which provides access to information on the ultimate beneficial owners of legal entities and is frequently used in asset tracing. The Register is directly relevant to civil asset recovery. Austrian lawyers have access to it (together with the Commercial Register, Land Register and Central Residents’ Register) and routinely use it as an investigative tool for identifying ownership structures and tracing assets to their ultimate controllers.

Recent amendments to the WiEReG, effective from 1 October 2025, have extended reporting obligations to include nominee agreements (Treuhandvereinbarungen). All nominee arrangements involving direct owners or executives of the reporting entity must now be disclosed, regardless of whether they give rise to beneficial ownership. For civil recovery practitioners, this enhanced transparency is significant, since it provides a clearer picture of who ultimately controls corporate structures that are frequently used to conceal misappropriated assets. Where a wrongdoer has sought to obscure ownership through nominee arrangements, the expanded register data may reveal the true controller and assist in both tracing and identifying appropriate defendants.

Anti-Money Laundering Rules

Further developments in AML regulation also influence asset recovery practice. The EU’s 2024 AML legislative package, including the creation of the Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), which is expected to strengthen supervision and cross-border cooperation among financial intelligence units and supervisory authorities.

For civil asset recovery, the impact is indirect but meaningful. Enhanced due diligence and reporting obligations imposed on banks and other obliged entities may improve the availability of information for tracing assets and financial flows. Where a bank or financial institution has conducted thorough customer due diligence and filed suspicious transaction reports, the resulting records may, subject to the applicable procedural rules, assist claimants in reconstructing the movement of funds. Furthermore, the increased focus on AML compliance may make financial institutions more responsive to legitimate inquiries and court orders in support of civil recovery, though practitioners continue to encounter data-protection-based objections and formalistic resistance in some cases.

Cross-Border Enforcement

Cross-border enforcement remains central to effective civil asset recovery, as wrongdoers frequently route funds through multiple jurisdictions, offshore vehicles and accounts in several countries. The key instruments are discussed in detail in earlier questions: the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) provides a streamlined mechanism for freezing bank accounts across EU Member States (see Question 5), while the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) ensures that Austrian judgments are directly enforceable throughout the EU without a separate declaration of enforceability (see Question 17). The EU Evidence Regulation facilitates cross-border evidence gathering, and the EU Insolvency Regulation coordinates recognition of insolvency-related measures across Member States (see Question 15).

For civil asset recovery, the significance of these instruments lies in their ability to close enforcement gaps that wrongdoers would otherwise exploit. Where assets are dispersed across borders, the ability to freeze accounts in another member state through a single Austrian court application (EAPO) or to enforce an Austrian judgment directly abroad (Brussels I Recast) can be decisive. Practitioners increasingly adopt coordinated multi-jurisdictional strategies from the outset, combining Austrian remedies with enforcement abroad. The trend is toward greater harmonisation and faster cross-border cooperation, though practical obstacles, including language barriers, divergent national procedures and variable court responsiveness, remain.