Account blocked on suspicion of money laundering

If an account is blocked on suspicion of money laundering, it is often associated with significant practical and financial consequences for those affected: Transfers are not executed, withdrawals are not possible, and access to online banking is sometimes restricted. The background is that credit institutions are legally obliged to file a suspicious activity report and temporarily wait in case of certain irregularities. However, it is important to note: An account freeze is not indefinitely permissible. After the statutory waiting period expires, the bank must generally release the account or the affected transaction unless there is a governmental prohibition.

Why banks block (and must report) on suspicion of money laundering

Banks and other parties obligated under the Money Laundering Act (GwG) must promptly report any suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). The obligation to file a suspicious activity report arises from § 43 GwG and is not dependent on a specific minimum amount.

If a suspicious activity report is filed, certain transactions may initially not be carried out. The key factor is the so-called waiting requirement under § 46 GwG. The transaction can only be executed once

• the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office authorizes the execution, or
• no prohibition is issued and the statutory period expires (regularly: three business days after the report is filed, depending on the situation and time limit calculation).

In practice, this often leads to banks temporarily restricting account access or certain dispositions to avoid violating the GwG.

Important: The statutory waiting period is tightly limited. A bank cannot block a withdrawal or transfer indefinitely based solely on a suspicious activity report if there is no corresponding governmental order.

Account release after the waiting period expires

If there is no contrary governmental decision (e.g., a prohibition or seizure by investigative authorities), the bank must generally allow withdrawals or transactions after the waiting period expires. This is at the heart of many disputes: affected individuals feel “permanently” locked out, while banks refer to review and risk processes.

Legally, the distinction between

• statutory waiting requirement (time-limited by § 46 GwG) and
• further measures based on governmental orders (e.g., criminal procedure measures/seizures) or exceptionally permissible internal bank security measures (which however must not become a de facto indefinite blockade without legal grounds) is crucial.

Case law: Banks must make payments after the period expires

LG Wiesbaden, judgment of February 12, 2024 – Case No. 3 O 238/23

That banks must generally allow payments after the statutory waiting period is demonstrated by a judgment of the Wiesbaden Regional Court on February 12, 2024 (Case No. 3 O 238/23).

In the case there, the plaintiff had maintained a checking account with the bank for years. Even at the time of opening the account in 2008, she had indicated that due to an inheritance, there might be larger transfers and credits. In 2023, 320,000 euros initially came into the account, and a few days later 680,000 euros were credited to the account. The bank reported the incoming payments to the FIU and denied the plaintiff access to her account or withdrawal.

The account holder sued – mostly successfully. During the proceedings, the bank transferred the amount of 320,000 euros to another account of the plaintiff. The regional court also ordered the bank to pay the second amount (680,000 euros). Reason: The waiting period according to the GwG is strictly time-limited. After its expiration, the bank is generally obliged to allow access to the funds again, unless a regulatory order opposes this..

OLG Frankfurt, judgment of February 25, 2025 – Case no. 10 U 18/24

The regional court had additionally decided that the bank must also reimburse the pre-trial legal fees of the plaintiff. However, this subsidiary decision did not stand in the appeal proceedings before the OLG Frankfurt (Case no. 10 U 18/24).

The OLG clarified: Pre-litigation legal fees are regularly eligible for reimbursement only if the bank was already in default at the time of commissioning. Default requires a due service, a reminder, and typically an appropriate period (Section 286 of the German Civil Code (BGB)). In the specific case, the period set by the plaintiff had not yet expired at the time of mandating – thus, there was no default.

No “automatic” liability of the bank due to the suspicion report

The OLG Frankfurt also denied a claim for damages due to a culpable breach of duty by the bank. According to the GwG, the credit institution was obliged to first await the suspicion report. A payout may only occur after the expiration of the statutory period, unless an earlier release is granted by the FIU or public prosecutor’s office.

The fact that the bank in the decided case waited a few additional days beyond the three-day period was not considered negligent by the court. Especially with unusually high amounts, the involvement of additional accounts, and complex circumstances, it may be appropriate for the bank to require extra time for internal review and decision-making.

Moreover, for civil liability, it is not decisive whether the report appears justified “in hindsight.” In any case, a willful or grossly negligent false report was not established according to the court’s findings, so a liability claim against the bank is excluded.

What affected parties can practically do

• Request clarification in writing: Get confirmation whether only a duty to wait according to Section 46 GwG is in place or whether there’s a regulatory prohibition/order in effect.
• Keep an eye on deadlines: What is crucial is when the suspicion report was submitted and how those working days are calculated. In individual cases, the precise calculation of the period may depend on the progression.
• Provide documentation:Proof of origin (e.g., certificate of inheritance, purchase contracts, tax documents, gift agreements, bank statements) can help to substantiate matters.
• Assert claim cleanly:Anyone demanding payment should clearly specify the amounts involved and set an appropriate deadline. This can be relevant if delays and cost issues play a role later.

Note:Banks are subject to legal confidentiality requirements in connection with suspicious transaction reports. Therefore, customers often receive only limited information about the backgrounds and details of the report.

Legal Notice

This article is intended for general information purposes and does not constitute individual legal advice. Whether and which claims exist always depends on the specific circumstances, particularly on any official measures and the exact timeline.

MTR Legal Attorneys provide support with inquiries related to suspicion of money laundering and other topics of business criminal law. Feel free to contact us.