Key financial crime offences are set out in the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch, or StGB) and supplementary legislation as follows:

• fraud (Section 263 StGB)
• embezzlement and breach of trust (Section 266 StGB)
• withholding wages and salaries (Section 266a StGB)
• money laundering (Section 261 StGB, reformed in 2021 to adopt an all-crimes approach)
• violations of the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz – GwG)
• bribery of public officials (Sections 331–338 StGB)
• commercial bribery (Sections 299–300 StGB)
• bribery of foreign public officials under the International Bribery Act (Internationales Bestechungsgesetz – IntBestG)
• insider dealing and market manipulation (Sections 119–120 of the Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz – WpHG); EU MAR)
• sanctions violations (Sections 17–18 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz – AWG))
• false accounting (Sections 331–332 of the Commercial Code (Handelsgesetzbuch – HGB); Section 400 of the Stock Corporation Act (Aktiengesetz – AktG))
• subsidy fraud (Section 264 StGB)
• insolvency offences (Sections 283–283d StGB, 15a Insolvenzordnung – InsO)
• tax evasion is governed by the Fiscal Code (Section 370 Abgabenordnung – AO).

Under German law, only individuals can be held criminally liable. Corporations face administrative sanctions, not criminal liability (see details in Q 2 below).

In Germany, corporations cannot be held criminally liable. Under the principle of individual culpability (nulla poena sine culpa), only individuals can be held criminally responsible. However, companies may be subject to administrative fines under Section 30 of the Administrative Offences Act (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz – OWiG) if a person acting in a managerial or representative capacity (Leitungsperson) commits a criminal or regulatory offence in connection with the company’s business activities.

Under Section 30 OWiG, the maximum fine is EUR 10 million for intentional offences and EUR 5 million for negligent offences. However, these limits can effectively be exceeded where necessary to recover financial benefits obtained from the offence, pursuant to Sections 30(3) and 17(4) OWiG. In addition, Section 130 OWiG requires management to take appropriate supervisory measures to prevent offences committed by employees.

A proposal for a comprehensive Corporate Sanctions Act (Verbandssanktionengesetz) was introduced during the 2017–2021 legislative period but ultimately failed to pass. As a result, corporate sanctions in Germany continue to be governed primarily by the provisions of the OWiG.

• breach of trust (Section 266 StGB) – the quintessential directors’ offence in Germany
• withholding wages and salaries (Section 266a StGB) – often in connection with income tax evasion (Section 370 AO) or late filing for insolvency, Section 15a Insolvency Code (Insolvenzordnung – InsO)
• tax evasion (Section 370 AO) – directors are personally responsible for the company’s tax declarations (Section 34 AO)
• fraud (Section 263 StGB)
• bankruptcy and insolvency offences (Sections 283–283d StGB)
• corruption offences (Sections 299–300, 331–338 StGB)
• capital market offences (Sections 119–120 WpHG)
• violation of supervisory duties (Section 130 OWiG).

Criminal offences are investigated and prosecuted by Public Prosecution Offices (Staatsanwaltschaft), which are organised at federal state (Bundesland) level. Many federal states maintain specialised prosecution units (Schwerpunktstaatsanwaltschaften) dedicated to white-collar crime, notably in Frankfurt, Munich, Hamburg and Cologne.

In tax matters, the Bußgeld- und Strafsachenstellen (BuStra) and Steuerfahndungsstellen (Steuerfahndung) play a specific role.

The BuStra is responsible for the procedural and prosecutorial handling of tax criminal and administrative-offence matters. Where the tax authority conducts the investigation independently under Section 386(2) AO, the BuStra exercises the rights and duties of the Public Prosecution Office during the investigation. It directs the investigation and makes the final procedural decisions, including whether to discontinue the proceedings or refer the case to the Public Prosecution Office.

The Steuerfahndung, by contrast, is primarily the investigative arm of the tax authorities. Its statutory functions include investigating tax offences and tax administrative offences, determining the relevant tax bases, and uncovering previously unknown tax cases. In criminal tax proceedings, officers of the Steuerfahndung have the investigative powers of police officers under the Code of Criminal Procedure and are considered investigating officers of the Public Prosecution Office. The Steuerfahndung therefore conducts the factual and forensic investigation, often on the instructions of the BuStra, but does not ordinarily make the final procedural decision in the tax criminal proceedings.

The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht “BaFin”) supervises financial markets and investigates insider dealing and market manipulation. The Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) handles competition/cartel matters. The Customs Criminal Office (Zollkriminalamt) and the Federal Office for Economic Affairs and Export Control (Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle “BAFA”) deal with customs fraud and sanctions/export control violations, respectively. In addition, customs authorities (Hauptzollamt) have investigative responsibilities in proceedings concerning the withholding and embezzlement of remuneration from employment in accordance with Section 266a StGB, in particular where such offences are connected with undeclared employment or violations identified in the course of customs investigations.

Germany participates in the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) for offences affecting EU financial interests.

The Local Court (Amtsgericht) handles minor cases where the expected sentence does not exceed four years. Serious financial crime is tried before the Regional Court (Landgericht), which maintains a specialised Economic Crime Chamber (Wirtschaftsstrafkammer) composed of three professional judges and two lay judges (Schöffen).

Germany does not use a jury system. All criminal cases are decided by professional judges, sometimes assisted by Schöffen who participate in determining the facts and imposing the sentence with equal voting rights. Evidence is evaluated under the principle of free judicial evaluation (freie Beweiswürdigung) under Section 261 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung – StPO).

Judgments of the Regional Court may be challenged by an appeal on points of law (Revision) before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof).

Where a case was heard at first instance by the Local Court, the defendant may appeal (Berufung) to the Regional Court. This allows the case to be reviewed both with regard to the facts and the law. Alternatively, a direct appeal on points of law (Sprungrevision) may be filed with the competent Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht). In that case, the review is limited to questions of law.

Under the principle of mandatory prosecution (Legalitätsprinzip, Section 152(2) StPO), prosecutors are required to investigate whenever there are sufficient factual indications that a criminal offence may have been committed. Investigations may be initiated following a criminal complaint, a suspicious activity report, a referral by a regulatory authority, or information reported in the media.

Dawn raids (Durchsuchungen) are a common investigative measure, particularly in corruption, tax and cartel cases. They generally require a prior judicial order under Sections 102–110 StPO, except in cases of imminent danger. Authorities may seize documents and electronic data under Sections 94–98 StPO, monitor bank accounts and freeze assets through a so-called “Vermögensarrest” under Section 111e StPO.

German criminal procedure does not provide for a party-driven disclosure regime comparable to the criminal disclosure rules in common law jurisdictions such as England and Wales. Instead, criminal investigations are conducted by the prosecution authorities and the police, which are responsible for investigating both incriminating and exculpatory circumstances and for securing relevant evidence. Prosecutors and investigating authorities obtain evidence through measures such as searches and seizures, as well as the examination of witnesses, who may be required to give evidence where legally permitted.

The defence counsel has a statutory right to inspect the investigation files (Akteneinsicht) under Section 147 StPO. Access may be restricted during the investigation stage where disclosure would jeopardise the purpose of the investigation, subject to statutory safeguards.

Prosecutors may summon witnesses pursuant to Section 161a StPO. A witness who is duly summoned by the Public Prosecution Office is generally required to appear and testify truthfully, subject to statutory rights to refuse to testify or provide information. Witnesses may also be summoned by the police where the summons is based on an order of the Public Prosecution Office pursuant to Section 163(3) StPO. A police summons issued without such an underlying prosecutorial order generally does not impose an obligation on the witness to appear or testify.

The obligation to tell the truth must be distinguished from criminal liability for false testimony. Sections 153 and 154 StGB apply to false statements made before a court or another authority competent to administer oaths. They therefore do not generally apply to a false statement made during an examination by the Public Prosecution Office or the police. During the investigation stage, witnesses are not sworn in by the Public Prosecution Office or the police. The administration of oaths is reserved to the courts. However, giving a false statement during an interview by the Public Prosecution Office or the police may constitute criminal liability for obstruction of prosecution or punishment pursuant to Section 258 StGB.

Accordingly, a witness may be legally required to appear and testify before the Public Prosecution Office, and in certain circumstances before the police, without being subject to criminal liability under Sections 153 or 154 StGB merely for giving a false statement during such an examination.

Suspects, by contrast, cannot generally be compelled to appear for questioning during the investigation stage and have the right to remain silent. When investigating corporate misconduct, authorities commonly interview current and former employees as witnesses. Directors or other individuals may be questioned as suspects where there are sufficient grounds to suspect them of having committed an offence personally.

The person’s procedural status as either a witness or a suspect determines the rights and obligations that apply during the interview, and this status may change if the investigation gives rise to suspicion against a witness. Where specialist expertise is required, the court may appoint expert witnesses, for example to conduct forensic accounting or other specialised financial analysis.

Suspects have an absolute right to remain silent, and no adverse inference may be drawn from their silence. Before questioning begins, they must be informed of the allegations against them, their right to remain silent and their right to consult a lawyer under Section 136(1) StPO. Under Section 137(1) StPO, suspects have the right to be represented by defence counsel at any stage of the criminal proceedings.

Witnesses are generally required to give truthful evidence but may refuse to testify in certain circumstances. This includes cases involving close family relationships (Section 52 StPO), professional confidentiality (Section 53 StPO, including lawyers, doctors and clergy), or a risk of self-incrimination (Section 55 StPO). If, during an interview, sufficient grounds arise to suspect a witness of having committed an offence, the questioning must be stopped and the individual must be informed of their rights as a suspect before questioning can continue.

Witnesses may also be assisted by a witness counsel (Zeugenbeistand) during interviews under Section 68b StPO.

Suspects or their defence counsel have a right to file access (Akteneinsicht, Section 147 StPO), though this may be restricted during ongoing investigations. Interviews are documented in written protocols. Audio/video recording is increasingly common but not yet mandatory.

German criminal law generally applies to offences committed in Germany (Section 3 StGB). Under Section 9 StGB, an offence is considered to have been committed in Germany if either the conduct or its result occurs in Germany. This territorial principle (Ubiquitätsprinzip) is interpreted broadly. For example, a financial transaction processed through a German bank or a relevant meeting taking place in Germany may be sufficient to establish a connection to German territory.

German criminal law may also apply to certain offences committed abroad. Under the active personality principle, Germany may exercise jurisdiction over specific offences committed by German nationals outside Germany, including certain cases of bribery of foreign public officials under the IntBestG. The EU Market Abuse Regulation (MAR) also applies directly and may cover conduct relating to financial instruments traded on EU markets, regardless of where the person responsible is located. In addition, German sanctions legislation under the AWG may apply extraterritorially in certain circumstances, including to German nationals and companies.

Finally, Section 6 StGB provides for German jurisdiction over certain offences involving internationally protected legal interests, regardless of where the offence was committed or which law applies at the place of the offence. This includes, for example, certain forms of subsidy fraud under Section 264 StGB.

German authorities actively cooperate with foreign authorities through bilateral mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) and various multilateral frameworks.

Within the EU, cross-border cooperation is facilitated by the European Investigation Order (EIO), which enables authorities to request specific investigative measures in another Member State, and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), which provides a streamlined procedure for the surrender of persons between Member States. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) further facilitates the investigation and prosecution of crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests.

Eurojust supports cooperation between national authorities in complex cross-border criminal cases and helps coordinate Joint Investigation Teams. The German Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) also cooperates with foreign financial intelligence units through the Egmont Group.

As a general rule, mutual legal assistance is subject to the principle of dual criminality, meaning that the conduct in question must constitute a criminal offence under both the requesting and the requested state’s laws. Germany may refuse to provide assistance where this would conflict with fundamental principles of German law or where the person concerned could face the death penalty.

Lawyers have a right to refuse testimony regarding matters communicated to them in their professional capacity (Section 53 StPO). Documents in the lawyer’s possession relating to the client relationship between a suspect and their criminal defence lawyer are protected from seizure (Section 97 StPO), including written and electronic communications, file notes and legal opinions.

These protections do not apply if the lawyer is personally suspected of involvement in the offence. Documents held by the client at the client’s own premises are generally not protected under Section 97 StPO. However, German courts have held that protection also extends to documents prepared by the defendant themselves for the purpose of preparing or conducting their defence, even if they are held in the defendant’s own possession, including in prison. This may include, for example, notes or a draft confession prepared by a defendant in prison as part of preparing their defence, provided that their defensive purpose is objectively recognisable. In-house counsel (Syndikusrechtsanwälte) have been admitted to the bar since 2015, but their practical privilege in criminal investigations remains contested and significantly more limited than for external counsel.

Unlike common law systems, Germany does not recognise a general work product doctrine or litigation privilege. During dawn raids, disputed documents can be sealed and submitted to the investigating judge for a ruling (Section 110 StPO).

The EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the German Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz – BDSG) apply to the processing of personal data in financial crime investigations. Part 3 of the BDSG implements the EU Law Enforcement Directive and provides specific rules for processing personal data for law enforcement purposes, subject to the principles of necessity and proportionality. Where public authorities process personal data for the purpose of the prevention, investigation, detection or prosecution of criminal offences, the GDPR does not apply directly. However, it remains applicable to other aspects of data processing in this context, including processing by private parties conducting internal investigations.

Internal investigations involving employee data, such as emails or access logs, must also comply with the requirements of Section 26 BDSG. In addition, the constitutional right to informational self-determination (Recht auf informationelle Selbstbestimmung), developed by the Federal Constitutional Court, provides an overarching requirement that any interference with personal data must be proportionate.

Banking secrecy does not prevent the disclosure of information where authorities have obtained it through compulsory measures, such as a valid seizure order. Similarly, tax secrecy (Steuergeheimnis) under Section 30 AO primarily governs the confidentiality obligations of the tax authorities. It does not generally create an evidentiary privilege that would prevent information from being disclosed or used in criminal proceedings.

Criminal liability is personal under German law and does not transfer to a successor. Administrative fines under Section 30 OWiG, however, may in certain circumstances be imposed on a legal successor following a universal succession (Gesamtrechtsnachfolge) under Section 30(2a) OWiG, a provision introduced in 2013. This means that, in cases involving a merger or other form of universal succession, an administrative fine may also affect the acquiring entity. This provision does not generally apply to asset deals, where the acquiring entity does not assume the seller’s legal position as a whole.

Competition law provides for a broader form of successor liability. Under Section 81a(2)–(3) GWB, an economic successor may be held liable for certain competition law infringements even where there has been no universal legal succession.

Against this background, M&A agreements in Germany commonly contain warranties, representations and indemnities addressing potential regulatory and criminal law risks, particularly where the target company may have been exposed to compliance or enforcement issues before the transaction.

Germany follows the Legalitätsprinzip (principle of mandatory prosecution, Section 152(2) StPO). Where there are sufficient factual indications that a criminal offence has been committed, the prosecution is required to investigate. Once the investigation has been completed, charges must be brought if there are sufficient grounds to expect a conviction (hinreichender Tatverdacht) under Section 170(1) StPO. Hinreichender Tatverdacht exists where, on the basis of a preliminary assessment of the investigation results, a conviction at trial with admissible evidence appears more probable than an acquittal.

There are, however, exceptions for less serious offences. Under Section 153 StPO, prosecutors may discontinue proceedings without imposing any conditions if the offence is considered minor and there is no public interest in prosecution. Section 153a StPO allows proceedings to be discontinued subject to certain conditions, such as a payment to the treasury or another specified obligation.

If the prosecution decides not to bring charges, the victim may, under certain circumstances, challenge this decision through a Klageerzwingungsverfahren (proceedings to compel prosecution) under Section 172 StPO.

The court must be convinced, based on the evidence presented, that the defendant is guilty before it can issue a conviction. This requirement of judicial conviction (richterliche Überzeugung) is broadly comparable to the common law “beyond reasonable doubt” standard. If, after assessing all the evidence, the court has reasonable doubts about the defendant’s guilt, the principle of in dubio pro reo requires the defendant to be acquitted.

Evidence is assessed according to the principle of free judicial evaluation (freie Beweiswürdigung) under Section 261 StPO. There is generally no hierarchy between different types of evidence, and German law does not provide for formal exclusionary rules comparable to those found in common law jurisdictions, although certain exceptions apply, particularly where evidence has been obtained in violation of fundamental rights.

The prosecution bears the burden of proving all elements of the alleged offence. The defendant is not required to prove their innocence.

Limitation periods under German criminal law depend on the maximum statutory penalty for the offence. The general limitation periods are 30 years for offences punishable by life imprisonment, 20 years where the maximum sentence exceeds ten years, 10 years where the maximum sentence is between five and ten years, five years where the maximum sentence is between one and five years, and three years where the maximum sentence does not exceed one year. As a result, many white-collar offences, including fraud, breach of trust and money laundering, are subject to limitation periods of five or ten years, depending on the applicable penalty.

For tax evasion, the standard limitation period is five years. In particularly serious cases under Section 376 AO, the limitation period is 15 years. Murder is not subject to a limitation period.

The limitation period may be interrupted by certain investigative or procedural acts under Section 78c StGB, such as the first questioning of the suspect or the filing of charges. However, interruptions are subject to the overall limit that the limitation period cannot be extended to more than twice the applicable statutory period.

Germany does not have a formal deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regime comparable to those in the US or UK. One of the main mechanisms for resolving less serious cases is the conditional discontinuation of proceedings under Section 153a StPO. The prosecution may discontinue the proceedings subject to certain conditions, such as a payment to the treasury, compensation to the victim or community service. If charges have already been filed, court approval is generally required. This mechanism is available where the defendant’s guilt is considered minor. In major cases, payments imposed under Section 153a StPO have amounted to tens of millions of euros.

Another simplified procedure is the penal order (Strafbefehl) under Sections 407–412 StPO. It allows less serious cases to be resolved without a main hearing by issuing a written penalty, typically a fine or, in certain circumstances, a suspended prison sentence of up to one year. The defendant has two weeks to accept the penal order or lodge an objection, in which case the matter will generally proceed to a main hearing.

German law also allows for the independent confiscation of criminal proceeds under Section 76a StGB, meaning that assets connected to criminal activity may, under certain circumstances, be confiscated even without a conviction of a particular individual.

Negotiated agreements between the court, prosecution and defence during a trial are discussed separately in Q 18.

Germany has a formal system of negotiated agreements in criminal proceedings, known as a ‘Verständigung’, which has been codified in Section 257c StPO since 2009. In such an agreement, the court may indicate a potential sentencing range in return for a confession or other procedural cooperation by the defendant. The prosecution and the defendant must agree to the Verständigung. Under Section 257c StPO, the formal subject of the agreement may be the applicable legal consequences and the corresponding sentencing range, but not a specific fixed sentence.

The court nevertheless retains its duty to establish the facts of the case and cannot simply accept the defendant’s confession without further examination. The confession must be assessed together with the other evidence presented in the proceedings.

The German system differs from US-style plea bargaining in several important respects. The court, rather than the prosecution, plays the central role in the negotiations. Agreements generally concern the sentence rather than the charges, and the agreed sentencing range must remain within the limits of the legally appropriate sentence. In addition, the negotiations and the resulting agreement must be conducted transparently and documented in open court.

The Federal Constitutional Court confirmed the constitutionality of the system in 2013, while emphasising strict transparency and documentation requirements. In practice, Verständigungen are frequently used in complex white-collar crime cases, particularly where the proceedings involve extensive evidence and would otherwise take months or even years to complete.

There is no general legal obligation for individuals or companies to report discovered misconduct to law enforcement. However, specific reporting duties exist under anti-money laundering legislation (Geldwäschegesetz).

For tax evasion, the Selbstanzeige (Section 371 AO) provides a well-established voluntary disclosure mechanism granting immunity from prosecution, provided that strict conditions are met, such as the complete and comprehensive disclosure of all tax offences committed over at least the last 10 years, payment of all back taxes and interest, and the absence of any prior grounds of exclusion (such as an ongoing tax audit). For amounts exceeding EUR 25,000, an additional surcharge applies (Section 398a AO). In cartel law, the Bundeskartellamt operates a formal leniency programme (Bonusregelung) offering full immunity to the first informant.

For other offences, there is no formal disclosure programme, but cooperation is recognised as a significant mitigating factor in practice. The Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz (Whistleblower Protection Act, 2023) requires companies with 50+ employees to maintain internal reporting channels.

Sentencing in Germany is individualised under Section 46 StGB, with each offence subject to a statutory sentencing range. In determining the appropriate sentence, the court considers the offender’s degree of guilt as well as aggravating and mitigating circumstances. These may include the offender’s motives, the consequences of the offence, previous conduct, cooperation with the authorities, a confession and efforts to compensate for the harm caused.

Fines are calculated using a daily-rate system. The court determines the number of daily rates, generally ranging from 5 to 360 depending on the seriousness of the offence, and then sets the amount of each daily rate based primarily on the offender’s financial circumstances. The daily rate generally ranges from EUR 1 to EUR 30,000. The total fine is calculated by multiplying the number of daily rates by the amount of each rate.

Prison sentences of up to two years may be suspended on probation if the relevant legal requirements are met. In practice, first-time offenders convicted of white-collar offences are often given suspended sentences, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Unlike in England and Wales, German law does not provide for formal, percentage-based sentence reductions for guilty pleas. In practice, however, a confession, cooperation with the authorities and other forms of assistance can result in a significantly lower sentence, particularly where they form part of a Verständigung.

Section 130 OWiG requires company directors to put in place appropriate supervisory measures to prevent criminal offences or administrative offences being committed by employees. In the tax context, the Application Decree to Section 153 AO (AEAO) provides that an appropriate internal control system designed to ensure compliance with tax obligations may constitute an indication against a finding of intent or gross negligence (“Leichtfertigkeit”) in the event of an incorrect tax return. The quality of a compliance management system is a relevant factor in determining the amount of any fine pursuant to Section 30 OWiG.

There is no formal ‘compliance defence’ that fully protects a company (unlike the defence of adequate procedures under the UK Bribery Act). However, an effective compliance system can rule out a finding of organisational culpability and significantly reduce sanctions. IDW PS 980 is the leading German auditing standard for compliance management systems. Compliance improvements made following a breach are consistently recognised by public prosecutors and courts as mitigating circumstances.

Companies should ensure the following: a comprehensive risk assessment, written policies and training, confidential reporting channels (now required by the Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz), monitoring and audit functions, consistent enforcement, and the documentation of all compliance measures.

Individuals may face imprisonment and/or fines. The main statutory penalty ranges include up to five years’ imprisonment for fraud, with serious cases punishable by six months to ten years; up to five years for tax evasion, with particularly serious cases punishable by up to ten years; and up to five years for breach of trust, with serious cases also carrying a maximum sentence of ten years. Bribery of public officials is generally punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment, while serious cases carry a sentence of between one and ten years.

In practice, first-time offenders, particularly in white-collar crime cases, are often given suspended sentences, depending on the circumstances of the offence and the offender. Other consequences may include the confiscation of criminal proceeds under Section 73 StGB, professional disqualification under Section 70 StGB, and disqualification from serving as a managing director or board member under Section 6(2) GmbHG and Section 76(3) AktG.

Companies may be subject to administrative fines under Section 30 OWiG of up to EUR 10 million, as well as the confiscation of financial benefits obtained through an offence. In competition law cases, significantly higher fines may apply. Under Section 81 GWB, companies can be fined up to 10% of their worldwide group turnover for certain competition law infringements.

A judgment of the Local Court may generally be challenged by way of an appeal (Berufung) before the Regional Court. This allows the case to be reviewed both with regard to the facts and the law. Alternatively, a Revision, which is limited to questions of law, may be filed directly with the competent Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht).

Where the judgment was issued by the Regional Court (Landgericht), including by an Economic Crime Chamber, only a Revision to the Federal Court of Justice is available. The Federal Court of Justice reviews questions of law but does not conduct a new assessment of the facts or hear the case again.

Once all ordinary legal remedies have been exhausted, a constitutional complaint (Verfassungsbeschwerde) may, in certain circumstances, be filed with the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht). In exceptional cases, criminal proceedings may also be reopened (Wiederaufnahme) under Sections 359–373a StPO, for example where new evidence becomes available or serious procedural errors have occurred.

German authorities have become increasingly active in the enforcement of financial crime, supported by specialised prosecution units and driven in part by several high-profile cases. Key enforcement priorities include Cum-Ex-related tax offences, fraud and sanctions violations.

However, complex financial crime proceedings in Germany can be lengthy. The investigation phase typically takes two to five years in complex cases, while trials before Economic Crime Chambers may last one to three years or even longer. The Wirecard trial, for example, was scheduled to involve more than 100 hearing days. As a result, the period from the initial investigation to a final judgment can easily extend to five to ten years in particularly complex cases.

Such delays may raise concerns under the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Excessive delays may also be taken into account as a mitigating factor when determining the sentence.

Key trends over the past five years include the prosecution of Cum-Ex and Cum-Cum dividend arbitrage schemes with an estimated tax loss exceeding EUR 10 billion, confirmed as criminal tax evasion by the BGH in 2021. There has also been a marked intensification of sanctions enforcement following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, with the establishment of a dedicated ‘Zentralstelle für Sanktionsdurchsetzung’ in 2022. Further notable developments are the growing scrutiny of ESG and greenwashing claims, as well as the impact of the 2021 money laundering reform and its all-crimes approach on case numbers. Additionally, there has been a wave of COVID-19 subsidy fraud prosecutions under Section 264 StGB and a rise in cryptocurrency-related financial crime.

The Wirecard trial of former CEO Markus Braun and his co-defendants before the Landgericht München I remains one of Germany’s most significant white-collar criminal proceedings.

In the Cum-Ex context, the BGH has further clarified the applicable legal framework, and several convictions of bankers have been upheld on appeal. The Hamburg Warburg case has also continued to attract considerable public attention. The proceedings concern the involvement of M.M. Warburg & Co. in Cum-Ex transactions. The case gained additional political significance because of meetings between Warburg representatives and senior Hamburg politicians, including then-Mayor Olaf Scholz. This led to investigations and a parliamentary inquiry into whether political considerations or influence had played a role in the handling of the bank’s tax claims by the Hamburg authorities.

German authorities have also intensified their efforts to enforce sanctions, including several high-profile investigations into asset tracing. BaFin has stepped up its enforcement activities following the Wirecard scandal and the reforms that followed. A key element of these reforms was the Financial Market Integrity Strengthening Act (Finanzmarktintegritätsstärkungsgesetz – FISG), which entered into force in July 2021. The FISG was introduced in response to weaknesses exposed by the Wirecard scandal and aimed, among other things, to strengthen financial reporting oversight, auditing requirements and BaFin’s supervisory powers.

In addition, the planned establishment of the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) in Frankfurt is expected to further strengthen the European enforcement framework and shape future developments in this area.

The debate over introducing corporate criminal liability in Germany is ongoing, although there is currently no legislative proposal pending.

The EU’s Anti-Money Laundering Package is also driving significant changes to Germany’s existing framework. The Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) has been operational in Frankfurt since July 2025. The new directly applicable EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AMLR) will apply from July 2027, while the Sixth Anti-Money Laundering Directive (AMLD6) must generally be transposed into German law by the same date, subject to certain earlier and later deadlines.

The EU’s Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) was substantially amended in 2026. Its transposition deadline has been postponed to 26 July 2028, with the amended requirements applying to companies from July 2029. Germany is expected to replace the existing Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) with legislation implementing the CSDDD. Other potential reforms concern the strengthening of Germany’s Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz and the modernisation of the StPO, with the aim of making complex economic crime proceedings more efficient and reducing delays. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office is also expected to further expand its operational activities and play an increasingly important role in the prosecution of financial crime at EU level.

In their Action Plan to Combat Financial Crime, the Federal Ministry of Finance and the Federal Ministry of Justice have also announced their intention to reform the current rules on voluntary self-disclosures in cases of tax evasion (Selbstanzeige). In particular, the Ministry has proposed abolishing the existing exemption from criminal liability in its current form.

One of the most significant structural gaps in Germany’s enforcement framework remains the absence of corporate criminal liability, an issue that has repeatedly been criticised by the OECD Working Group on Bribery and GRECO (Groupe d’États contre la corruption). The maximum fine of EUR 10 million under Section 30 OWiG is often considered insufficient, particularly for large corporations. Germany also does not have a formal deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) or non-prosecution agreement (NPA) regime, which limits prosecutors’ ability to impose measures such as independent monitorships or ongoing compliance obligations.

Other areas for improvement include chronic resource constraints at public prosecution offices and courts, as well as the excessive length of complex white-collar crime proceedings, which can take five to ten years. Whistleblower protection also remains limited, as Germany does not provide financial incentives for reporting comparable to the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) whistleblower programme. In addition, the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) continues to face significant processing backlogs, while the scope of legal privilege for in-house counsel remains uncertain. Finally, enforcement is fragmented across Germany’s 16 federal states, which have different priorities, approaches and levels of available resources.