The financing of terrorist activities is a crucial component of global security threats. Funds for such activities can originate from both legal and illegal sources, often disguised as seemingly legitimate transactions. Governments and international organizations have created an increasingly complex regulatory framework to effectively combat terrorist financing. However, as with any criminal law regulation, this endeavor presents significant legal challenges.
Legal Foundations and Challenges in Germany
In Germany, terrorist financing is criminalized under Section 89c of the German Criminal Code (StGB). This provision covers, among other things, the collection or provision of financial assets for terrorist purposes. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has clarified that merely repurposing existing funds does not constitute a criminal offense. What matters is whether there is an intent to finance a specific catalog offense.
This leads to a fundamental legal issue: When does criminal liability begin? Is it enough to merely suspect that a financial transaction might be used for terrorist purposes? Or must there be a direct link to a specific terrorist act? Defining this threshold is challenging, particularly when payments are made under the guise of humanitarian aid or charitable donations.
Additionally, some assets are transferred through seemingly legitimate business transactions, making it difficult to determine the recipient’s intent. Here, criminal law collides with economic realities and the presumption of innocence.
Reporting Obligations and Suspicious Activity Reports: Between Surveillance and Legal Certainty
Another core issue arises with the reporting obligations imposed on financial institutions and other entities under the German Anti-Money Laundering Act (GwG). These entities must file suspicious transaction reports (STRs) with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) whenever transactions appear unusual. However, defining what constitutes a “suspicious” transaction is problematic. Courts have ruled that the threshold for filing an STR may be lower than the threshold for initiating a criminal investigation.
This creates practical uncertainty: banks and businesses are under pressure to file too many rather than too few reports to avoid fines or liability risks. As a result, innocent individuals may come under scrutiny, facing severe restrictions on their financial freedom.
The Role of EU Law: Centralization and New Supervisory Authorities
At the European level, the introduction of the new EU Anti-Money Laundering Regulation (AML-VO) and the establishment of the AMLA authority mark a significant shift. The Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), set to become operational in 2025, will centralize control over anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing efforts to ensure uniform enforcement across the EU.
A particularly controversial aspect is that the AML-VO expands the list of obligated entities. Now, crypto service providers, crowdfunding platforms, and traders of luxury goods must comply with strict transparency and reporting requirements. This extends surveillance beyond the traditional financial sector.
Criminal and Economic Risks for Businesses
For businesses—from banks to precious metal dealers—this regulatory shift entails significant responsibility. They must implement robust risk management systems to detect suspicious transactions while facing potential fines, liability risks, and reputational damage for non-compliance.
International trade presents additional challenges. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) has identified that terrorist financing is often facilitated through trade-based money laundering (TBML). This involves manipulating invoices, goods values, or shipment quantities to disguise illicit financial flows.
Businesses are left wondering: How much control is feasible? While authorities demand stricter measures, industry associations warn of overregulation that could stifle global trade.
Conclusion: A Fragile Balance Between Security and Freedom
Combating terrorist financing is undoubtedly necessary. However, the legal and practical challenges are immense. Lawmakers increasingly emphasize preventive measures and comprehensive financial surveillance, yet fundamental legal principles such as the presumption of innocence and economic freedoms are under pressure.
In practice, maintaining a balance between security and the rule of law is often difficult. While financial institutions and businesses are expected to monitor and report transactions, the actual effectiveness of these measures remains debatable. The future will reveal whether the new European regulations provide greater clarity and efficiency—or whether they merely expand bureaucracy without effectively targeting the real perpetrators.
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.