Liability of a Money Mule for Reckless Money Laundering – OLG Frankfurt Judgment – Az. 29 U 100/24 (case no. 29 U 100/24)
The judgment of the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main) of 17 October 2025 (Az. 29 U 100/24) concerns the civil liability of a so-called money mule who makes their own bank account available for the onward transfer of fraudulently obtained funds.
The decision is particularly significant because the court clarifies that even a person who was not involved in the original fraud may be liable to pay damages to the victim of the fraud. This applies in particular if their conduct constitutes reckless money laundering.
Pressured into Acting over the Phone
The judgment concerned a case of telephone fraud.
On 11 January 2023, the claimant was contacted by telephone by an unknown offender. The caller claimed to be a bank employee and falsely told the claimant that fraudulent transfers had already been made from her bank account. To reverse or cancel these purported transactions, she was told that she had to approve certain transfers herself.
By means of this deception, the offender succeeded in inducing the claimant to authorise several transfers using her bank’s PhotoTAN app.
One of these transfers amounted to EUR 9,500. The money was transferred to the bank account of the person who subsequently became the defendant.
Account Made Available
However, the defendant was not the actual fraudster. Instead, he had made his bank account available to an acquaintance so that the latter could process a transfer through it. According to the defendant, his acquaintance had exhausted his own daily limit and urgently needed money to settle debts.
Transactions at Supermarket Checkouts
After the EUR 9,500 had been credited to his account, the defendant withdrew part of the money from an ATM. He obtained further amounts through numerous transactions at various supermarket checkouts.
That same evening, on 11 January 2023, all of the funds were handed over in cash to two other individuals.
Method Appeared Suspicious
The defendant later stated that the procedure had appeared suspicious to him. However, because he was tired after an early shift, he had not given the matter any further thought and had merely wanted to help his acquaintance.
The claimant initially attempted, without success, to recover the money from her bank. She then demanded that the defendant reimburse the amount lost. The defendant also failed to comply with this demand.
The claimant subsequently brought an action before the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main (Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main).
LG Frankfurt Dismisses the Action
By judgment of 8 August 2024 (Az. 2-32 O 8/24 (case no. 2-32 O 8/24)), the Landgericht Frankfurt am Main dismissed the action.
In the Regional Court’s view, the claimant had no direct restitutionary claim against the defendant under § 812(1), first sentence, BGB (German Civil Code).
The court reasoned that, in the case of an unauthorised payment, it is generally not the purported payer but the instructed bank that has a restitutionary claim against the payment recipient.
Because the claimant had authorised the transfer herself, additional difficulties arose with regard to its legal classification.
The claimant appealed against this decision to the OLG Frankfurt am Main. Her bank supported her as an intervening party.
Appeal Before OLG Frankfurt Successful
The OLG Frankfurt am Main allowed the claimant’s appeal in full and amended the judgment of the Regional Court.
The defendant was ordered to
-
pay the claimant EUR 9,500.00 in damages, together with interest at five percentage points above the base rate from 15 August 2023;
-
reimburse a further EUR 973.66 in pre-litigation legal fees.
In addition, the defendant was ordered to bear the costs of the proceedings, including the costs arising from the intervention.
Leave to appeal on points of law was denied.
The decision is not subject to appeal.
Offence of Reckless Money Laundering Established
The OLG based its decision in particular on the fact that, by making his bank account available and subsequently forwarding the funds, the defendant had committed the offence of reckless money laundering.
This gave rise to a claim for damages by the claimant under § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with § 261(1) and (6) StGB (German Criminal Code).
Claimant’s Claim for Damages
The OLG initially left open whether the claimant already had a restitutionary claim against the defendant under § 812(1), first sentence, BGB.
The court pointed out that the claimant might herself have validly authorised the transfer within the meaning of § 675j BGB. In that case, the defendant may have obtained the money directly at the claimant’s expense.
However, another claim was decisive:
In the OLG’s view, the claimant was in any event entitled to damages under § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with § 261(1) and (6) StGB.
§ 823(2) BGB establishes liability in damages where a person breaches a statute that is also intended to protect another person.
The OLG expressly held that § 261(6) StGB constitutes such a protective statute.
Accordingly, a victim of fraud may also bring civil claims for damages against a person who has committed the offence of reckless money laundering.
In this respect, the court referred to the case law of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, Federal Court of Justice), judgment of 19 December 2012 – VIII ZR 302/11 (case no. VIII ZR 302/11).
Existence of an Unlawful Predicate Offence
One requirement for money laundering is that the asset in question originates from an unlawful offence.
The OLG considered this requirement to have been met.
The claimant had been deceived by unknown offenders posing as employees of her bank and had thereby been induced to transfer EUR 9,500.00.
There was therefore an unlawful predicate offence in the form of fraud pursuant to § 263 StGB.
It is particularly noteworthy that the OLG did not require the actual fraudsters to be identified.
It was not necessary for the perpetrators of the predicate offence to be specifically identified. Nor did the precise location or specific circumstances of the offence have to be established.
Rather, for money laundering to be established, it was sufficient to determine that the assets originated from some form of unlawful offence.
In this regard, the court referred to the BGH order of 25 April 2022 (Az. 5 StR 100/22 (case no. 5 StR 100/22)).
Money Laundering Through Withdrawal and Onward Transfer of Funds
The OLG found that the defendant’s conduct satisfied the objective elements of the offence of money laundering.
The funds originally obtained through the fraud had initially been credited to his bank account.
The defendant subsequently withdrew some of the money from ATMs and obtained further amounts through numerous transactions at various supermarket checkouts.
He then handed the cash over to two other individuals.
In the court’s view, the conversion of the account balance into cash already constituted a relevant act within the meaning of § 261(1) no. 3 StGB.
The subsequent transfer of the money to third parties was also deemed to constitute an act satisfying the elements of the offence.
Civil liability follows from § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with § 261(1) no. 3 and (6) StGB on the grounds of reckless money laundering.
The OLG also emphasised that the offence of money laundering is not limited to cash.
Defendant’s Recklessness
The OLG’s observations on recklessness are of particular significance.
Under § 261(6) StGB, a person also commits the offence of money laundering if they recklessly fail to recognise that an asset originates from an unlawful offence.
According to the case law, recklessness exists where the unlawful origin is virtually obvious, but the person concerned fails to recognise this possibility due to exceptional carelessness or indifference.
The OLG considered these requirements to have been met in the present case.
In particular, the court relied on the following circumstances:
-
Transfer of a substantial amount of money by an unknown person: Without making any further enquiries, the defendant agreed to make his bank account available for a transfer. This involved a substantial sum of money transferred to his account by a person unknown to him.
-
Implausibility of the acquaintance’s explanation: The acquaintance had stated that he had exhausted his own daily limit and therefore needed to use the defendant’s account. The OLG found it inexplicable why the acquaintance could not have had the money transferred to his own account. The purported urgency of the transaction late in the evening also appeared implausible to the court.
-
Suspicious withdrawal method: The OLG considered the manner in which the defendant had withdrawn the money to be particularly incriminating. The funds were not obtained through a single withdrawal, but through an estimated 20 to 30 individual transactions, some in amounts of EUR 200 each. This also required several journeys to different supermarkets. In the court’s view, this procedure permitted only the conclusion that dividing the funds and converting them into cash was intended to conceal the original flow of funds.
-
Defendant’s own account: It was particularly significant that the defendant himself had admitted that the procedure had already appeared suspicious to him while it was being carried out.
-
He had therefore failed to give sufficient consideration to the obvious possibility that the money had an unlawful origin.
The OLG therefore concluded that the defendant had carelessly or indifferently shut his eyes to the possibility that the money was of criminal origin.
The fact that the defendant was still very young and had little life experience at the time of the offence did not alter this assessment.
The court thus clarified that even the mere onward transfer of bank funds obtained by fraud may constitute an act of money laundering.
No Contributory Negligence on the Part of the Claimant
The defendant was also unable to argue that, by approving the transfers through her PhotoTAN app, the claimant had herself breached a duty of care.
The OLG expressly rejected any reduction of the damages claim on the grounds of contributory negligence pursuant to § 254 BGB.
In its reasoning, the court stated that the protective purpose of any duty of care that the claimant might have breached when using the PhotoTAN app did not extend to the defendant.
In particular, the claimant did not owe the defendant, as the person committing the money laundering offence, a duty to comply with specific security requirements when using her bank account.
In other words, even if the claimant had been careless when approving the transfers, this did not release from liability the person who recklessly forwarded the fraudulently obtained funds.
Contributory negligence under § 254 BGB is not taken into account because the victim owes no duty of care to the person committing the money laundering offence. The claim for damages against the money mule therefore remains payable in full even where the injured party has themselves committed significant failings.
Scope of the Claim for Damages
The OLG held that the entire financial loss of EUR 9,500.00 was recoverable.
In addition, the defendant was required to reimburse pre-litigation legal fees of EUR 973.66.
In the court’s view, these costs were also covered by the claim for damages because they had been incurred in enforcing the claimant’s valid claims against the defendant.
The claim for damages was therefore not limited.
Practical Implications of the Judgment
The judgment of the OLG Frankfurt am Main is of considerable practical significance for the civil liability of so-called money mules.
Money mules are individuals who make their own bank accounts available to third parties in order to receive sums of money and subsequently forward them or withdraw them in cash.
Such individuals are frequently used by fraudsters to conceal the origin of unlawfully obtained funds and protect the actual offenders from identification.
The decision makes clear that a money mule cannot readily rely on the argument that they were merely helping an acquaintance or were not themselves involved in the original fraud.
Rather, the reckless failure to heed obvious warning signs may itself give rise to personal liability in damages to the victim of the fraud.
Conclusion: So-Called Money Mules May Be Held Liable
In its judgment of 17 October 2025, the OLG Frankfurt am Main clarified the liability of individuals who make their bank accounts available for processing fraudulent financial transactions.
The decision demonstrates that money mules may not only face criminal consequences but may also be personally liable to the actual victim of the fraud for the resulting loss.
The application of § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with § 261(6) StGB is particularly noteworthy. It provides the victim of fraud with a direct basis for a civil claim against a person who, through reckless money laundering, contributed to concealing and forwarding the fraudulently obtained funds.
At the same time, the judgment makes clear that individuals cannot avoid civil liability by referring to a mere favour or purported good faith if, in view of the specific circumstances, the unlawful origin of the funds should have been virtually obvious.
The central message of the decision is therefore: anyone who makes their bank account available for third-party financial transactions and recklessly shuts their eyes to an evidently possible criminal origin of the funds may be personally liable to compensate the victim of the underlying fraud in full.
Assessment by MTR Legal
Digital attacks on bank accounts regularly raise issues of banking and payment services law, often involving complex distinctions concerning authorisation and the allocation of risk. MTR Legal Rechtsanwälte assists clients in connection with unexplained account debits, unauthorised access incidents or blocked online banking access and offers legal advice on banking law..
