Understanding the Unique Challenges of Money Laundering Law in Germany: Germany, with its highly developed economy and pivotal role in global finance, is particularly vulnerable to the infiltration of illicit capital. Despite robust legal reforms in recent years, the fight against money laundering in Germany remains marked by significant legal complexity, broad criminal liability, and unresolved systemic tensions between domestic enforcement needs and cross-border legal constraints.
A Legal Landscape in Transition
The current German money laundering offence (§ 261 StGB) underwent major reform in 2021. At the core of the reform was a shift from a specific list of predicate offences to a so-called “all-crimes approach.” This means that any criminal offence—regardless of severity—can now serve as a predicate for money laundering charges. From petty theft to complex financial crimes, all sources of illicit value fall within the scope of the law.
While this reform aimed to make prosecutions more effective, particularly by relieving prosecutors of the burden to prove a specific predicate offence, it has also introduced uncertainty and widened the net of potential criminal liability. Even those only negligently unaware of the illicit origin of assets may face criminal charges—an unusually low threshold for a criminal offence in a liberal legal system.
The Expansion of Extraterritorial Reach
The current law also explicitly covers foreign predicate offences. Under § 261 para. 9 StGB, assets derived from criminal acts committed abroad can trigger German money laundering charges, provided those acts are criminal under both German law and the law of the country where the predicate offence took place (“lex loci”).
However, in certain cases—especially where European Union interests are involved—this requirement of dual criminality is waived. The law allows for a domestic prosecution based solely on German standards, regardless of whether the predicate offence would have been punishable in the foreign jurisdiction. This raises not only legal and philosophical questions about the limits of jurisdiction, but also practical concerns for compliance and cross-border risk management.
The German Paradox: Cash Affinity Meets Financial Power
Germany has long had a pronounced affinity for cash transactions. Despite its status as the largest economy in the European Union, the country still lacks meaningful restrictions on high-value cash use, particularly in real estate transactions. This cultural and legal permissiveness creates a fertile ground for money laundering.
In 2019, Germany’s National Risk Assessment classified the national money laundering threat as “medium-high.” This reflects the paradox of Germany’s attractiveness for both legitimate investment and the concealment of criminal proceeds. The fragmented and often understaffed enforcement structure—especially at the state level—only reinforces the problem.
Structural Tensions and the Role of Defense Counsel
For defense practitioners, the money laundering offence presents a unique challenge. § 261 StGB is not only technically complex; it also tends to reverse the burden of proof in practice. Defendants are frequently forced to explain the origin of funds, a task that can be extremely difficult even for innocent parties. The reform’s emphasis on prosecution efficiency risks undermining fundamental principles of criminal justice—especially the presumption of innocence.
An important safeguard is the so-called “defense attorney privilege.” Under § 261 para. 1 sentence 3 StGB, criminal defense lawyers accepting fees from their clients are only liable if they knew with certainty that the funds were derived from criminal activity. While this provision reflects constitutional jurisprudence, it remains a narrow exception in an otherwise expansive statute.
Legal Overreach and European Discrepancies
Germany’s aggressive implementation of the all-crimes approach—surpassing even the requirements of EU directives—has led to legal criticism. There is a growing concern that the broad scope of § 261 StGB, combined with its low mens rea threshold, may criminalize behaviour that is merely negligent or lacks sufficient connection to serious wrongdoing.
Moreover, differing definitions of criminality across jurisdictions pose compliance risks for international actors. A transaction legal in one country might give rise to money laundering liability in Germany if the German authorities consider the underlying act criminal by their standards.
Legal professionals, financial institutions, and compliance officers operating across borders must remain alert: what appears to be a routine financial transaction abroad might, under German law, become the foundation of a criminal proceeding.
Conclusion: Vigilance in Complexity
For foreign observers, Germany’s approach to money laundering reveals the tensions between legal pragmatism, moral ambition, and transnational legal order. The German model offers a potent legal tool—but one that operates with considerable ambiguity and a wide prosecutorial discretion.
Our law firm specialises in criminal defence, white-collar crime and IT law / technology law. Note our activity in digital evidence in IT security and software law.
- Liability of Companies in Phishing and CEO Fraud Incidents - 13. May 2025
- Domain Law in Germany - 10. May 2025
- Art Law in Germany - 10. May 2025