White-Collar Crime 2025 Comparisons

Main Categories of Offences

Under Section 12 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB), offences are divided into felonies (serious criminal offences, Verbrechen) and misdemeanours (less serious criminal offences, Vergehen). Felonies are punishable by at least one year of imprisonment, whereas misdemeanours carry lesser penalties, such as fines or short-term imprisonment.

Criminal offences must be distinguished from administrative/regulatory offences (Ordnungswidrigkeiten). Such offences often concern violations of the law that occur on a large scale every day (eg, traffic violations and violations of the law in areas such as tax, construction, trade, labour, environment). Because administrative/regulatory offences involve a lesser degree of wrongdoing, the legislature does not treat them as punishable crimes and therefore imposes fines rather than penalties. These fines, however, may still be substantial and cause reputational harm. This applies in particular to legal entities, as one peculiarity of German law is that legal entities can only be sanctioned for criminal offences and administrative offences committed by their managers and employees on the basis of the Administrative Offences Act (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz – OWiG). This includes violations of supervisory duties under Sections 30 and 130 OWiG (see 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability).

General Prerequisites

According to the prevailing legal doctrine, an offence contains three elements.

• Statutory elements (Tatbestand) – the objective element (actus reus) is a conduct, either an act or omission, that meets the legal definition of a crime. The subjective element (mens rea) usually requires intent. While some offences require direct intent (Absicht), where the offender’s actions are geared towards committing the offence, usually, conditional intent, where the offender does not wish for a specific success, but foresees it and accepts it in order to achieve their ultimate goal (dolus eventualis), is sufficient. Negligent behaviour is only punishable if the law expressly provides for punishment.
• Unlawfulness (Rechtswidrigkeit) – the act must not be justified under any legal defence (eg, self-defence, justifying necessity). In principle, any act that fulfils the statutory elements is presumed unlawful unless a justification applies.
• Culpability (Schuld) – this stage examines the offender’s capacity for guilt and any grounds for excuse (eg, pathological mental disorder, alcohol or drug intoxication).

Attempted Offences

Attempts are punishable if the offender intended the crime and took direct steps toward it. Felonies are always punishable when attempted; misdemeanours only if specified by law (Sections 22–24 StGB).

Which Party Has the Burden of Proof?

The burden of proof rests with the prosecution authorities, which must establish the defendant’s guilt through sufficient evidence. Owing to the inquisitorial nature of the system, both the court and the prosecution are obliged to investigate the facts independently under the principle of official investigation (Amtsermittlungsgrundsatz), examining all relevant circumstances to uncover the material truth (materielle Wahrheit), including both incriminating and exonerating evidence.

Standard of Proof

The court must be convinced “beyond reasonable doubt” based on its assessment of the evidence (freie richterliche Beweiswürdigung). If any reasonable doubt remains after the evidentiary process, the principle of in dubio pro reo (when in doubt, for the accused) applies, and the defendant must be acquitted.

Presumption Mechanisms

German criminal law does not recognise presumptions in favour of the prosecution. Unlike administrative or tax proceedings, where certain legal presumptions or fictions may apply, criminal trials require direct proof of guilt.

Limitation Periods

White-collar offences are usually subject to limitation periods of three to five years. Aggravated tax evasion extends to 15 years (Section 376(1) of the Fiscal Code (Abgabenordnung – AO)).

Unless specific legal provisions apply, the statute of limitations for prosecuting administrative offences (eg, violations of supervisory duties, breaches of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), or export control violations) is between six months and three years, depending on the severity of the potential fine (Section 31 (2) OWiG).

Calculation

The length of the limitation period depends on the maximum penalty or fine prescribed by the law. For criminal offences, Section 78(3) StGB regulates:

• 30 years for offences punishable by life imprisonment;
• 20 years for crimes with a maximum term of imprisonment exceeding ten years;
• ten years for crimes punishable by more than five and up to ten years’ imprisonment;
• five years for offenses punishable by more than one and up to five years’ imprisonment; and
• three years for all other offences.

For administrative offences, the limitation period is determined by the maximum fine and ranges from six months to three years (Section 31(2) OWiG).

When Do Limitation Periods Begin to Run?

The limitation period begins to run as soon as the offence is completed (Section 78a StGB). For continuing or repeated offences, it starts after the last act or when the unlawful conduct ceases. In respect of omissions, the period starts after the duty to act ends. For tax offences, it usually begins at the end of the calendar year the declaration was submitted, or later if none was made.

Specifics for Concealed and Continuing Offences

There is no separate statute for concealed offences, but limitation periods may be suspended (Section 78b StGB) during ongoing investigations or administrative procedures. They may be interrupted (Section 78c StGB) by actions like suspect interrogation or filing charges, which restart the period. Concealment and delayed discovery can significantly extend prosecutability. Absolute limitation bars prosecution after twice the statutory period (Section 78c(3) sentence 2 StGB).

Extraterritorial Reach

Sections 3–7 and 9 StGB extend the scope of German criminal law far beyond the borders of German territory. This requires a genuine link to Germany, such as the offender or the victim being a German national or the offence affecting German interests. For example, regardless of the law applicable at the place of commission, German criminal law applies to public bribery committed abroad (Section 5 No 15 and 16 StGB), such as:

• if the offender is a European public official based in Germany (Section 5 No 15 lit. b StGB);
• the offence was committed in relation to a German public official, a person entrusted with special public service functions or a soldier of the Federal Armed Forces (Section 5 No 15 lit. c, StGB); or
• the offence was committed in relation to a European public official, an arbitrator or a person in a similar position (Section 335a StGB) who has German citizenship (Section 5 No 15 lit. d StGB).

Section 9(2) sentence 2 StGB further extends this reach by providing that German criminal law applies to participation acts committed in Germany even if the principal offence occurred abroad and is not punishable under the law of the place of commission. The provision effectively overrides the usual principle of accessoriness (Akzessorietät), which typically links the punishability of participation to the punishability of the main offence.

Cross-Border Co-operation and Legal Instruments

Germany has a broad framework for international co-operation.

• The Act on International Cooperation in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen – IRG) governs mutual legal assistance and extradition.
• Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLATs) enable cross-border evidence sharing and the securing of witness testimony.
• Within the EU, co-operation is structured by the Convention on Mutual Assistance, the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and the European Investigation Order (EIO), and is fundamentally based on the principle of mutual recognition, which significantly facilitates judicial co-operation between member states. The European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) complements this framework by investigating and prosecuting crimes affecting the EU’s financial interests, while the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) conducts administrative investigations into fraud, corruption and misconduct involving EU funds.
• Germany actively participates in Eurojust, Europol, INTERPOL, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) and the OECD Working Group on Bribery.

Extradition and Limitations

Extradition requires the offence to be punishable in Germany, meet a minimum sentence threshold (usually one year), and respect human rights. Germany generally refuses to extradite its nationals outside the EU and may limit co-operation under the EU Blocking Statute (Regulation (EU) 2271/96) against extraterritorial sanctions.

Major Cross-Border Enforcement Actions

Prominent examples include:

• March 2025 – Europol co-ordinated a large-scale operation against cocaine trafficking between South America and Europe, seizing 73 tons of cocaine worth billions of euros and arresting suspects in Ecuador, Germany and Spain;
• April 2025 – EPPO and OLAF uncovered a EUR9.5 million EU-funds fraud and money-laundering scheme involving Romania, Cyprus, Czechia, Germany and other jurisdictions;
• April 2025 – EPPO uncovered a EUR50 million VAT carousel fraud across Germany, Bulgaria and Poland as part of the EU-wide “Cluster Midas” investigation; and
• November 2025 – Eurojust co-ordinated a global action against a EUR300 million credit card fraud scheme spanning 193 countries, leading to 18 arrests and extensive seizures across Europe and beyond.

Key Rules for Legal Entities, Individuals and Transactions

Under German law, only natural persons and not legal entities can be held criminally liable. This is often considered to be insufficient, but recent legislative efforts to introduce a Corporate Sanctions Act (Verbandssanktionengesetz) in Germany, which provided for tougher sanctions, created incentives for the implementation of compliance measures (as they should have a mitigating effect), and contained rules for the conduct of internal investigations, failed in June 2021.

However, legal entities face significant administrative fines or forfeiture orders under Section 30 OWiG when a legal entity’s representative commits offences in the interest of the company or breaches their duties. Liability may also arise pursuant to Section 130 OWiG, if the representative intentionally or negligently fails to take the supervisory measures required to prevent offences, and an employee of the company commits an offence that would have been prevented or made considerably more difficult by proper supervision. Under the principle of dual liability, both individuals and legal entities can be held liable for the same offence. Well-structured compliance programs help mitigate these risks and penalties (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties, 3.3 Anti-Bribery Regulation and 4.1 White-Collar Defences).

Under Section 30(2a) OWiG, successor liability applies only in cases of universal succession such as mergers under Sections 2 et seq. of the Transformation Act (Umwandlungsgesetz – UmwG) or complete transfers under Section 174(1) UmwG, as well as in cases of partial universal succession through a demerger pursuant to Section 123(1) UmwG. Transactions that do not involve universal succession, including spin-offs under Section 123(2) UmwG, hive-downs under Section 123(3) UmwG, or asset deals, are not covered since the transferring entity continues to exist and remains liable.

A parent company may be liable under Section 130 OWiG if it exerts effective influence over the decisions of a subsidiary or issues instructions that affect the subsidiary’s conduct. The existence and scope of the supervisory duty depend on the actual circumstances within the group, particularly the degree of de facto control exercised by the parent company. Where the subsidiary acts independently, the responsibility for compliance remains with its own management.

Germany lacks a standalone “failure to prevent” offence, but Sections 30 and 130 OWiG establish a comparable mechanism for cases of managerial negligence or inadequate oversight.

Enforcement Practice

Sanctions against a legal entity (Section 30 OWiG) are typically imposed alongside proceedings against the individual offender, reflecting a general preference for pursuing individual responsibility first. However, if no proceedings are initiated against the individual, the case is discontinued, or punishment is waived and a standalone corporate fine may be imposed under Section 30(4) OWiG to ensure accountability despite unresolved individual culpability.

Assessment of Penalties

Penalties are based on general sentencing principles under Section 46(1) StGB. There are no fixed sentencing guidelines; instead, the trial judge conducts a holistic evaluation considering the offender’s culpability, offence severity, motives, harm caused and behaviour before, during and after the offence, including efforts to repair damage.

Deferred Prosecution, Non-Prosecution, and Plea Agreements

Germany does not recognise US- or UK-style deferred prosecution agreements. However, once a public trial has begun, prosecutors and courts can enter into agreements with the defendant if all parties acknowledge significant risks regarding the facts underlying the alleged offence. In such cases, the parties may agree on the type of sanction and an approximate range of fines. Plea agreements (Absprachen) and settlements may also influence sentencing by demonstrating co-operation and acceptance of responsibility.

Mitigating Factors and Compliance

According to the Federal Court of Justice, functioning compliance programmes can lead to reduced fines (BGH 9 May 2017 – 1 StR 265/16) and subsequent self-cleaning measures, such as the implementation of comprehensive compliance programmes and whistle-blower systems, may further mitigate penalties (BGH 27 April 2022 – 5 StR 278/21). Additional mitigation includes voluntary confession, co-operation, compensation efforts, personal circumstances and assisting authorities in other investigations.

Legal Grounds and Conditions for Compensation

Victims can seek compensation through various means. They may pursue civil claims for material and immaterial damages under general tort law (Sections 823(2) and 826 of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB)), secure assets through freezing orders (Section 916 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessordnung – ZPO)), and benefit from prosecutors’ ability to seize criminal proceeds for compensation within criminal proceedings (Sections 459h–459m StPO). Victim-offender mediation (Section 46a StGB) allows victims to seek compensation directly from the offender. The Victim Compensation Act (Opferentschädigungsgesetz – OEG) provides state-funded relief where the offender is unable to provide payment. In addition, victims may assert their claims within criminal proceedings via the adhesion procedure (Adhäsionsverfahren, Sections 403–406c StPO), though in practice this remedy is of limited significance.

Jurisdiction

Although compensation claims can also be addressed in criminal courts through adhesion proceedings, they are in practice primarily pursued before civil courts.

Collective Redress Mechanisms

Germany has limited collective redress options, including the Model Declaratory Action (Musterfeststellungsklage) and association lawsuits (Verbandsklagen), which allow groups to pursue common issues but not collective damages. While such instruments play only a limited role in the white-collar context, the Wirecard case illustrates that they may nonetheless be employed in large-scale corporate misconduct cases.

Responsible Authorities

Public Prosecutor’s Offices (Staatsanwaltschaften) in the 16 federal states are responsible for directing and conducting criminal investigations and prosecutions, typically based on where the location of the offence or the company involved is located. In larger judicial districts, specialised divisions for economic crime have been established, such as the Special Public Prosecutor’s Office for Economic Crimes (Schwerpunktstaatsanwaltschaft für Wirtschaftsstrafsachen) in Frankfurt am Main. Acting as the authority in charge of the investigative process (Herrin des Ermittlungsverfahrens), the Public Prosecutor’s Office supervises and instructs the police, which carry out investigations on its behalf. The Federal Criminal Police Office (Bundeskriminalamt) investigates certain serious and international crimes, either under its own jurisdiction or on behalf of prosecutors.

Other Enforcement Mechanisms

Various authorities enforce related laws alongside criminal prosecutions. The Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht, BaFin) oversees financial services, with powers to impose fines, revoke licences, and supervise compliance with AML and counter-terrorism financing (CTF) obligations. While BaFin is the primary AML supervisor for the financial sector, it does not conduct criminal investigations or process individual suspicious transaction reports (SARs), which remain the responsibility of law enforcement and the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU). BaFin now operates under the oversight of the European Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA), which commenced operations in July 2025 and will assume direct supervisory powers over high-risk, cross-border institutions from 2028. The previous government’s plans to establish a new Federal Office for Combating Financial Crime (Bundesamt zur Bekämpfung von Finanzkriminalität) to enhance financial crime enforcement have been discontinued.

The Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) handles competition law violations, data protection authorities ensure compliance with the GDPR, and other regulators, such as environmental, labour, customs and tax authorities, also contribute.

Conflicts and Co-Ordination

Conflicts of jurisdiction can arise because both prosecutors and administrative authorities may investigate the same conduct. While the prosecution retains primacy under Section 152(2) StPO (see 2.2 Initiating an Investigation), Section 400 AO constitutes an exception by permitting tax authorities to request a penal order. Absent such request, the matter must be referred to the prosecutor. Pursuant to Section 40 OWiG, the prosecution may also pursue an administrative offence within a criminal proceeding, thereby displacing the administrative authority. In practice, parallel investigations are often co-ordinated through joint task forces.

At the EU level, cross-border conflicts pose additional challenges: ne bis in idem (double jeopardy) prevents multiple prosecutions for the same facts, yet Council Framework Decision 2009/948/JHA offers only non-binding guidance, leaving forum choice and legal predictability uncertain – particularly for multinational companies. Eurojust can be requested to support the competent authorities by facilitating early co-ordination, information exchange, and decisions on which jurisdiction should prosecute, helping to mitigate the practical uncertainty left by the Framework Decision.

Specialised Courts

Specialised criminal chambers known as Wirtschaftsstrafkammern at the regional courts (Landgerichte) handle complex cases like corporate and credit fraud, as per Section 74c of the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG).

No major regulatory reorganisations have occurred recently. Enforcement focus and resource allocation are shaped by political priorities, especially on money laundering and data protection.

Initiation of White-Collar Investigations by Government Authorities

Public prosecutors must initiate investigations once there is a “suspicion threshold” (Anfangsverdacht), meaning concrete indications of a possible offence. This reflects the principle of mandatory prosecution (Legalitätsprinzip, Section 152(2) StPO), according to which the public prosecutor is obliged to take action in respect of all prosecutable offences, provided there are sufficient factual indications, unless otherwise prescribed by law. The threshold for action is deliberately low to ensure prompt intervention against criminal activity.

Legal Framework

The obligation to initiate investigations applies only to individuals, not directly to legal entities. Corporate administrative offences, like regulatory fines, are at the discretion of the relevant authority. These proceedings are governed by the opportunity principle anchored in Section 47 OWiG (Opportunitätsprinzip). This principle allows authorities to decide whether to initiate, pursue or terminate proceedings. Administrative investigations against legal entities often follow criminal probes of individuals but can also be independent.

Triggers for Investigations in the Corporate Context

Investigations may be triggered by whistle-blower reports, cartel leniency requests, SARs filed by financial institutions, third-party complaints or findings arising from regulatory audits.

Special Considerations

Some offences, such as private corruption, require a formal complaint (Strafantrag), but prosecutors may proceed without one in cases of public interest.

Investigative Powers

German authorities have broad powers, including those related to searching properties, seizing funds, monitoring communications, conducting surveillance, summoning witnesses and making arrests. All actions must comply with the Code of Criminal Procedure, constitutional right, and the principle of proportionality (Verhältnismäßigkeitsgrundsatz).

Document Production Requests

Prosecutors and police can request documents or data without a court order. Companies must comply or face fines or imprisonment, and co-operation may help avoid raids. Data protection laws still apply, though enforcement interests often prevail. Legal privilege under German law is more limited than in common law jurisdictions. It primarily protects communication between external lawyers and their clients, especially when the lawyer is acting in a criminal defence capacity. However, not all documents created during internal investigations are protected, and simply labelling documents as privileged offers only limited protection (see also 2.5 Internal Investigations).

Raids and Seizures

Searches generally require a court-issued search warrant, unless there is imminent danger (Gefahr im Verzug), which allows prosecutors or police to act without prior judicial authorisation. Even if challenged, evidence is rarely excluded, as Germany does not follow the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Instead, German courts apply a case-by-case balancing approach, weighing the severity of the rights violation against the public interest in prosecution.

Questioning of Individuals

Company affiliates may be summoned to testify in criminal or regulatory proceedings. They are protected by the constitutional right not to incriminate themselves (Selbstbelastungsverbot), as enshrined in Article 1(1) and Article 2(1) of the German Constitution (Grundgesetz) and Section 55 StPO (nemo tenetur se ipsum accusare). However, non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) do not override legal obligations to testify. A contractual duty of confidentiality cannot be used to justify refusal to co-operate with law enforcement or judicial authorities. Individuals must comply with valid subpoenas or court orders, and failure to do so may result in penalties, including fines or detention for contempt of court.

Tracing, Freezing and Seizing Digital Assets

Authorities may trace, freeze or seize digital assets (such as cryptocurrencies) with judicial authorisation, especially in cases involving fraud, money laundering or organised crime. These measures aim to prevent the dissipation of illicit proceeds and secure potential confiscation.

Asset freezing (Vermögensarrest) and confiscation are governed by Sections 73 et seq. StGB and require a court order, unless there is imminent danger, which allows temporary action without approval.

Digital assets are increasingly targeted in enforcement actions, and Germany has conducted major seizures of cryptocurrencies in recent years, often in co-operation with international partners.

German authorities are increasingly using AI to process large datasets in white-collar cases. For instance, prosecutors in Gießen applied AI to analyse video and image data, accelerating suspect identification.

Regulatory Framework and Compliance

AI use is governed by the EU Artificial Intelligence Act (2024/1689), in force since August 2024. It imposes obligations such as staff training, restricted uses and penalties for non-compliance. While most AI e-discovery tools are not classified as “high-risk” pursuant to Article 6 of the Act, users must comply with data protection laws and avoid manipulative practices, including behavioural or emotional profiling.

Acceptance of AI-Enhanced Investigations

Authorities accept AI-assisted analyses in both enforcement and company-led investigations. However, companies must monitor AI use, train staff and ensure ongoing compliance with legal and ethical standards.

While not explicitly mandated by law, corporate management must address suspected misconduct under Sections 93(1) and 76(1) of the German Stock Corporation Act (Aktiengesetz – AktG) and Section 130 OWiG. The scope of any investigation depends on business judgement, with emphasis on proportionality, reasonableness and the severity of the suspected violation.

Data Protection and Labour Law Considerations

Internal investigations must comply with GDPR, the Federal Data Protection Act (Bundesdatenschutzgesetz – BDSG) and applicable labour law provisions, including co-determination rules under the Works Constitution Act (Betriebsverfassungsgesetz – BetrVG). These laws require transparency, necessity and confidentiality in handling employee data. Works councils (Betriebsrat) must usually be informed or consulted, particularly where personal data is collected, or employee monitoring is involved. Failure to observe these requirements may result in data protection violations and undermine the legitimacy of the investigation.

Obligation to Share Findings With Authorities

There is usually no mandatory obligation to proactively approach the authorities. However, upon the authorities’ formal request, investigation results must be shared, for example pursuant to Section 95(1) StPO. Voluntary co-operation can be advisable to prevent intrusive measures, mitigate fines under Section 17(3) OWiG, and provide valuable evidence for civil claims if the company/legal entity itself is also a victim of the misconduct.

Legal Privilege in Internal Investigations

German law does not recognise a broad concept of attorney–client privilege comparable to that in common law jurisdictions. Protection is rudimentarily regulated and derives from the Federal Lawyers’ Act (Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung – BRAO) and the StPO, referring inter alia to the right to refuse testimony (Sections 52 et seq. StPO), the prohibition of seizure (Section 97 StPO) and the communication between the accused and defence counsel (Section 148 StPO).

Privilege exists only within the relationship of trust (Vertrauensverhältnis) between an external defence lawyer and the accused in specific criminal proceedings. This was confirmed by the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, BVerfG) in the Jones Day decision (27 June 2018 – 2 BvR 1287/17) and upheld by the European Court of Human Rights (Applications 1022/19 and 1125/19).

A company benefits from protection only if treated as an accused, for example where there is sufficient suspicion that a management member has committed an offence (Section 30 (1) OWiG) or the company is foreseeably involved in the proceedings. Mere expectation of proceedings is insufficient.

In-house counsel (Syndikusrechtsanwälte) are not covered, as they form part of the company and are not regarded as independent defence lawyers under the StPO.

Cross-Border Considerations

Cross-border investigations add further complexity, particularly in relation to data transfers, differing standards of legal privilege, and mutual legal assistance procedures. Legal entities operating internationally must ensure that internal investigation protocols are aligned with both domestic and foreign legal requirements to avoid regulatory conflicts and to support admissibility of evidence.

Initiation and Discretion

Public prosecutors are generally obliged to initiate proceedings when there is an initial suspicion of a criminal offence, in accordance with the principle of mandatory prosecution (Legalitätsprinzip) (see 2.2 Initiating an Investigation). While prosecutorial discretion is limited, proceedings may be discontinued in certain situations, such as when the offence is minor or if a monetary penalty is agreed upon (Section 153a StPO). This discretion extends even after formal charges have been filed (see 2.7 Deferred Prosecution).

In contrast, administrative offence proceedings under the OWiG are governed by the opportunity principle (Opportunitätsprinzip), which allows authorities significantly more flexibility (see 2.2 Initiating an Investigation). This is particularly relevant for legal entities.

Alternative Resolution Mechanisms

German law does not recognise formal deferred or non-prosecution agreements (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties), but proceedings may be discontinued without admission of guilt under Sections 153–154 StPO with court and prosecutor consent (except in minor cases), or terminated without further notice for lack of evidence (Section 170(2) StPO), and provisional termination subject to conditions and payment may occur under Section 153a StPO when the offence lacks special public interest, with payment amounts set by the prosecutor considering offence severity and the accused’s financial situation (for related procedural options, see 4.3 Plea Agreements, Co-Operation, Self-Disclosure and Leniency). While not legally required, voluntary remediation by legal entities can positively influence prosecutorial decisions.

Germany does not recognise a criminal company law (see 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability). However, under Section 30 OWiG in conjunction with Section 130 OWiG, legal entities can be held liable for certain offences committed by their organs or employees. Sanctions include administrative fines, asset confiscation/recovery, exclusion from public procurement and potential reputational damage. These measures complement the individual liability of directors and employees discussed in 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability.

Fraud

Fraud (Section 263(1) StGB) involves intentional deception to gain unlawful financial benefit and is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine. Cases of aggravated fraud (Section 263(3) StGB) carry sentences up to ten years. Capital investment fraud (Section 264a StGB) covers false statements in securities offerings, with penalties of up to three years.

Embezzlement

Under Section 266 StGB, intentional breach of fiduciary duties causing asset damage constitutes criminal breach of trust, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or fines.

Other Corporate Offences

Subsidy, insurance, credit and social security frauds are also prosecutable, with penalties depending on the severity.

Bribery is prohibited in both the private and public sectors. Both givers and receivers can be held liable.

In the private sector, Section 299 StGB penalises offering, promising or accepting benefits for unfair competitive advantage, requiring at least an implicit agreement. Private sector bribery can lead to fines or up to three years’ imprisonment.

In the public sector, Sections 331–334 StGB criminalise both the granting of benefits to public officials and bribery involving a breach of official duties. The term “public official” is broadly defined and encompasses not only traditional civil servants but also EU officials and individuals entrusted with public functions. Offences are punishable by imprisonment of up to five years or a fine. In particularly severe cases (Section 335 StGB), penalties range from one to ten years of imprisonment.

Section 335a StGB extends criminal liability to the bribery of foreign public officials, irrespective of the law in the country where the act occurred. Additionally, Section 108f StGB addresses undue advantages exchanged by members of parliament to promote third-party interests, with violations punishable by up to three years of imprisonment or a fine. Legal entities may face fines under the OWiG if managers commit bribery or fail to supervise adequately.

As a consequence, legal entities risk exclusion from public tenders, supported by a nationwide competition register that bars legal entities with relevant conviction.

Obligation to Prevent Bribery and Maintain Compliance Programmes

German law does not require a general anti-bribery compliance programme, but legal entities may face indirect obligations to prevent corruption. Under Sections 93(1) and 76(1) AktG, management must ensure lawful business conduct and can be held liable for failing to implement controls to prevent offences, including bribery. Supervisory failures can lead to corporate fines under Section 130 OWiG (see for example 1.5 Corporate and Personal Liability).

Certain sectors, like finance, have stricter rules. Section 25a of the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz – KWG) requires financial institutions to maintain risk management and compliance systems to detect and prevent legal breaches, including corruption.

While not mandatory, the presence and quality of compliance programmes influence enforcement outcomes. Courts consider these when deciding fines, confiscations or leniency (see for example 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties).

Under the German Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz – GwG), certain “obliged entities” such as tax auditors must file suspicious activity reports (Verdachtsanzeigen) with the FIU if they suspect that assets originate from any criminal offence, including corruption, money laundering or other predicate crimes. Legal entities convicted of bribery or related offences risk exclusion from public tenders under Section 123 of the Competition Act (Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen – GWB).

Germany’s insider trading and market abuse laws align with EU rules under the Market Abuse Regulation (596/2014) (MAR) and are codified in Sections 119 and 120 of the German Securities Trading Act (Wertpapierhandelsgesetz – WpHG).

Under Article 14 MAR, insider dealing, the unlawful disclosure of inside information, and recommendations or inducements to trade on such information are prohibited. Intentional violations of these prohibitions constitute criminal offences under Section 119(3) WpHG and can lead to imprisonment of up to five years or fines. Negligent or reckless conduct is treated as an administrative offence under Section 120(14) WpHG.

Market manipulation is prohibited under Article 15 MAR. It is defined in Article 12 MAR as transactions or conduct that give false or misleading signals about market prices or demand. Intentional acts that affect market prices constitute criminal offences under Section 119(1) No 1 WpHG are punishable by fines or imprisonment of up to five years, while reckless or unproven manipulative behaviour is treated as an administrative offence under Section 120(15) No 2 WpHG.

For both offences, criminal liability extends to attempted offences (Section 119(4) WpHG).

BaFin initiates investigations and oversees administrative proceedings, advising prosecutors on potential dismissals. Under criminal banking law, Section 54a KWG holds bank executives liable for failing to implement adequate risk controls that endanger solvency. Criminal banking law violations by executives may also incur fines or imprisonment, depending on the severity.

Tax Evasion Offences and Prevention Obligations

Tax evasion involves intentionally submitting false or incomplete tax returns or failing to file them, causing tax underpayment (Section 370 AO). Authorities must prove the taxpayer knowingly sought to reduce tax liability by withholding or falsifying information. Tax evasion carries penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment for up to five years, with harsher sentences for amounts exceeding EUR1 million. Voluntary disclosure can prevent criminal sanctions if conditions are met (Section 371 AO). Settlements with tax authorities do not preclude criminal prosecution but may aid in discontinuation of proceedings.

While no statutory requirement exists for formal tax compliance programmes, guidelines by the Federal Ministry of Finance recognise such programmes may indicate absence of intent or gross negligence. Tax authorities may negotiate settlements on unpaid taxes, which do not bind prosecutors but often aim to discontinue prosecution.

Financial Record-Keeping

Main offences include accounting fraud, breaches of financial disclosure obligations and violations of accounting duties, primarily governed by the German Commercial Code (Handelsgesetzbuch – HGB) and the StGB.

Accounting fraud (Section 331 HGB) applies when management or supervisory board members intentionally misrepresent material facts in financial statements, distorting the company’s financial situation. Authorities must prove deliberate intent. Penalties for accounting fraud include imprisonment for up to three years or fines.

Breaches of financial disclosure obligations involve severe misstatements in annual financial statements by board members or auditors, requiring proof of a significant breach of disclosure duties. Breaches of disclosure duties may result in imprisonment for up to one year or fines, while deliberate falsification of audit reports (Section 332(1) HGB) carries penalties of up to three years’ imprisonment or fines. Less severe violations may be treated as administrative offences under Section 334 HGB.

Violations of accounting duties under Sections 283(1) No 5–7 and 283b StGB arise mainly in insolvency-related situations, such as suspension of payments or insolvency proceedings, where statutory accounting obligations are neglected. Violations of accounting duties in insolvency cases can lead to imprisonment for up to five years or fines.

The main offences are primarily governed by the GWB and supplemented by EU law under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Most violations are administrative offences enforced by the Bundeskartellamt (Section 81 GWB). Collusive tendering is a criminal offence under Section 298 StGB. Administrative fines under the GWB are based on turnover and may extend to corporate groups. Collusive tendering carries penalties of imprisonment for up to five years or fines.

Liability of Legal Entities

Companies, including parent entities, can be fined under Section 81a GWB for infringements by subsidiaries if they exercised decisive influence. This mirrors EU law but differs from usual German administrative offence principles.

The Digital Markets Act (Regulation (EU) 2022/1925) (DMA)

The DMA prohibits anti-competitive conduct by digital “gatekeepers”, imposing fines of up to 10% of a company’s total worldwide annual turnover, or up to 20% for repeated infringements (Article 30).

While Germany has no dedicated criminal code for consumer protection, certain offences relate to unfair practices and product safety.

Misleading Advertising and Unfair Practices

Intentional deception of consumers through advertising is punishable under Section 16 of the Act Against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb – UWG). This includes misleading promotions that create false impressions of special offers and schemes rewarding consumers for recruiting others. Penalties range from fines or imprisonment, depending on intent, severity of harm and type of offence.

Product Safety Offences

Manufacturers or distributors can be held liable if defective products cause harm due to negligence or omission. General criminal provisions apply in such circumstances.

Cybercrime is addressed in the StGB and the Trade Secrets Act (Gesetz zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen – GeschGehG). Unauthorised access to protected data (Section 202a StGB), data interception (Section 202b StGB) and preparatory acts (Section 202c StGB) constitute criminal offences. Distribution or use of hacking tools may also trigger liability. Computer sabotage (Section 303b StGB) criminalises denial-of-service attacks, malware deployment and IT system disruption. Sanctions include fines or imprisonment, generally up to three years, or five in serious cases.

Computer Fraud and Related Offences

Computer fraud (Section 263a StGB) covers the manipulation of data or systems to obtain unlawful gain. Phishing may be prosecuted under Sections 202b and 263a StGB. Falsification of data (Sections 269–270 StGB) or handling stolen data (202d StGB) is also punishable. Sanctions range up to ten years of imprisonment in aggravated cases.

Protection of Company Secrets

Unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of trade secrets is criminalised under Section 23 GeschGehG, punishable by fines or imprisonment of up to three years and up to five years in serious cases. Offences require intentional conduct without consent, unless justified by public interest.

Extraterritorial Scope

German cybercrime laws apply where the offence or its effect occurs in Germany (Section 9 StGB). Trade secret breaches have extended extraterritorial reach (Section 5 StGB) (see also 1.4 Extraterritorial Reach and Cross-Border Co-Operation).

Overview

Germany enforces sanctions under the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Außenwirtschaftsgesetz – AWG) and the AO, aligned with EU regulations. The framework governs trade and financial restrictions, customs duties and export controls, with both national and extraterritorial reach.

Constituent Elements of Offences

Intentional violations of embargoes or licensing requirements involving sanctioned goods, services or transactions constitute criminal offences (Sections 17–19 AWG). Arms embargo breaches are subject to significantly harsher penalties. Criminal offences may lead to imprisonment for periods from three months up to ten years. Administrative offences can result in fines of up to EUR500,000 (Section 19(6) AWG). Customs duty evasion is treated as tax evasion under Section 370 AO and may include aggravated forms such as commercial or gang-based smuggling (Sections 372–374 AO). Negligent breaches, by contrast, are generally classified as administrative offences. Customs offences may be prosecuted even if committed abroad (Section 370(7) AO). Self-disclosure may mitigate liability in certain cases (Section 22(4) AWG).

Obstruction of Justice

Concealing facts or evidence relevant to a criminal investigation may constitute obstruction of justice, punishable by imprisonment for up to five years or a fine. Those in management positions who become aware of employee offences generally have no legal duty to report and typically are not liable for omission. According to Section 93(1) AktG, it remains the board’s discretion whether to sanction employees or file criminal complaints, even in serious cases.

Thwarting Enforcement of Sentences

Under Section 258 StGB, intentionally obstructing the enforcement of a final sentence, for example by concealment or assisting escape, is a standalone offence punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine.

Concealment in Fraud and Money Laundering

Concealment may also form part of fraud offences, such as fraud by omission, where information is intentionally withheld to obtain unlawful benefit. Concealing the illegal origin of assets may lead to money laundering liability under Section 261 StGB. An individual may be liable for both the underlying offence and concealment if all statutory elements are met. Penalties vary from fines to imprisonment, depending on the nature and gravity of the offence.

Anyone who conspires, assists or takes an active role in a corporate offence can be liable as a principal or accessory under Sections 25–27 StGB. Co-perpetrators act jointly and directly; aiders and abettors intentionally support or facilitate the offence and usually receive reduced penalties, while instigators intentionally induce others and are punished as principals. There are no specific provisions for liability of associated persons or agents in bribery and corruption beyond these general rules. Sanctions generally correspond to those for principal offenders but may be reduced depending on the individual’s role and circumstances.

Mental Element

All forms of participation require intent, and in cases of neutral acts such as legal or professional services, liability depends on whether the assistance was knowingly provided to enable the offence.

Section 261 StGB criminalises money laundering, which occurs when someone knowingly or recklessly handles assets derived from any criminal offence with the intent to conceal their illegal origin. Since 2021, all crimes – including foreign offences, misdemeanours, or felonies – can serve as predicate offences, significantly broadening the scope of the section. Penalties include imprisonment for three months up to five years or fines. Under Section 261(8) No 1 StGB, voluntary self-disclosure can exempt the offender from punishment.

Expanded Liability and Predicate Offences

Recklessness regarding the illicit origin of assets is sufficient for liability, broadening the offence’s scope for individuals and businesses dealing with suspicious funds.

Obligations to Prevent Money Laundering

Under the GwG, financial institutions and other obliged entities are required to implement effective risk management systems, carry out customer due diligence, and report suspicious activities to the FIU. In addition, most legal entities must register and disclose their beneficial ownership information in the Transparency Register.

Sanctions and Enforcement

Non-compliance may result in administrative fines of up to EUR5 million or 10% of annual turnover. Public prosecutors handle criminal cases, while regulatory authorities conduct supervision to ensure compliance.

German law explicitly covers environmental offences under Sections 324 to 330d StGB, including water pollution (Section 324 StGB), soil contamination (Section 324a StGB), air pollution (Section 325 StGB), illegal handling of hazardous waste (Section 326 StGB) and operation of environmentally hazardous facilities (Section 327 StGB). These require intentional or negligent acts causing significant harm or risk. Sanctions range from fines to imprisonment for up to five years, or ten years in severe cases.

Human Rights Violations and Modern Slavery

The Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (Lieferkettensorgfaltspflichtengesetz – LkSG) mandates enterprises regardless of their legal form with 1,000 or more employees in Germany to implement risk management systems, conduct supply chain risk analyses, and take preventive measures against child labour, forced labour, unsafe working conditions, unfair pay and environment-related human rights violations.

Recent reform changes have abolished the LkSG reporting obligation retroactively to 2023 and narrowed sanctions to only serious breaches of human rights due diligence. Minor or environmental breaches no longer attract fines. Enterprises must still document compliance efforts. Administrative fines can reach up to EUR8 million or 2% of global turnover for serious violations, and non-compliance can lead to exclusion from public procurement.

Upcoming EU rules under the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) may impose stricter requirements from July 2027.

Under German law, there are no specific offences targeting misuse of AI or algorithmic trading. However, existing laws on market manipulation (Section 12 MAR, see 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law), fraud (Section 263 StGB, see 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud), and data protection (GDPR) can apply if AI or algorithms are used unlawfully. Penalties include fines and imprisonment depending on the offence.

Crypto-assets are classified under Article 1 of the Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR) (Regulation (EU) 2023/1114) as e-money tokens, asset-referenced tokens or other crypto-assets, with parallel definitions in the KWG. Crypto-assets qualifying as securities fall under existing securities laws.

Key offences include fraud (Section 263 StGB, see 3.1 Criminal Company Law and Corporate Fraud), market manipulation (Section 12 MAR, see 3.4 Insider Dealing, Market Abuse and Criminal Banking Law), money laundering (Section 261 StGB, see 3.13 Money Laundering) and sanctions breaches. These involve deceptive conduct, market distortions, laundering illegal proceeds or violating sanctions via crypto.

Crypto-asset service providers (CASPs) must be licensed by BaFin under MiCAR and Kryptomärkteaufsichtsgesetz – KMAG and comply with AML obligations under the GwG. This includes customer due diligence, risk assessments and suspicious activity reporting. Non-compliance can lead to fines, criminal penalties, license revocation and public enforcement actions.

Common Defences

Most criminal offences require intent, meaning the defendant knew and accepted the risk of the offence (see 1.1 Criminal Offences). Defences based on lack of intent are often successful, as the prosecution must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt. Claims of ignorance of the law apply only when misunderstanding was unavoidable and based on a genuine belief. Courts expect individuals to seek reliable advice if uncertain. Mistaken belief about essential facts can also negate intent, though negligence may still lead to liability.

As seen above, an effective compliance programme is a key defence against alleged supervisory breaches under Section 130 OWiG (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties).

Under German Law, white-collar offences generally do not benefit from de minimis exceptions, and no industries or sectors are specifically exempt from prosecution.

Plea Agreements

Under Section 257c StPO, defendants may enter into plea agreements with prosecutors and the court, typically by admitting guilt in exchange for a proposed sentence or concessions. The court independently verifies facts and the voluntariness of confessions. Similar arrangements can apply in administrative offence proceedings involving fines, but judicial approval is mandatory. Unlike common law jurisdictions, German plea bargaining is strictly regulated and cannot override statutory sentencing limits.

Co-operation With Authorities

While Germany lacks formal deferred prosecution agreements (see 1.6 Sentencing and Penalties, 2.7 Deferred Prosecution), voluntary co-operation can lead to lighter sentences or reduced fines. Legal entities that proactively engage with prosecutors may avoid harsher penalties, though co-operation doesn’t guarantee immunity.

Voluntary Self-Disclosure

German law recognises voluntary self-disclosure for offences like tax evasion (see 3.5 Tax Fraud) and money laundering (see 3.13 Money Laundering). To obtain immunity or reduced penalties, disclosures must be complete, timely and truthful. Even where immunity is not granted, self-disclosure often mitigates sentencing or penalties.

Leniency Programmes

In antitrust law, the first applicant providing evidence and full co-operation may receive full immunity; others may get reduced fines. Criminal law offers limited leniency, but co-operative individuals can get sentence reductions under Section 46b StGB. Recent practice shows courts increasingly consider co-operation agreements in complex white-collar cases, though these remain subject to judicial scrutiny.

Whistle-Blower Protection

Germany provides legal protections for whistle-blowers under the HinSchG, effective since July 2023, implementing the Whistleblower Directive (EU) 2019/1937.

Reporting Channels and External Reporting

Whistle-blowers may report internally or externally to designated authorities such as the Federal Office of Justice (Bundesamt für Justiz – BfJ), BaFin or Bundeskartellamt. While internal reporting is generally encouraged where safe and effective, whistle-blowers can freely choose their reporting channel (Section 7(1) HinSchG). External reporting offices must ensure confidentiality and provide secure communication channels. They must handle anonymous reports but are not obliged, subject to more specific legislation, to offer anonymous submission channels (Section 27(1) HinSchG).

Volume and Handling of Reports

In 2024, a total of 1,802 reports were submitted to the federal external reporting office at the Federal Office of Justice. Reports are handled confidentially by trained staff, including former judges, who investigate cases as needed. Authorities are required to acknowledge receipt within seven days and provide feedback within three months, as stipulated by the HinSchG.

Lack of Financial Incentives

Neither EU nor German law offers monetary rewards for whistle-blowers. Protection focuses on safeguarding against retaliation rather than offering financial incentives.

Safeguards and Company Procedures

Legal entities must implement confidential internal reporting systems, including options for anonymous reporting. They are obliged to protect whistle-blowers from retaliation and ensure policies prevent discrimination against those acting in good faith. Compliance is monitored by supervisory authorities, and failure to establish proper reporting channels may result in administrative fines.

Impact on Defence Strategies in Multi-Jurisdictional Cases

Defence strategies become significantly more complex by conflicting laws, procedural differences and the risk of parallel proceedings across jurisdictions. Key issues include privilege, disclosure obligations and evidence admissibility, all of which require careful co-ordination. Data protection regimes such as the GDPR impose strict limits on cross-border information sharing. Defendants may face multiple prosecutions where states compete for jurisdiction or fail to co-ordinate investigations. The ne bis in idem principle is a crucial defence tool, preventing repeated prosecution once a final decision exists, although exceptions apply. At the same time, authorities may engage in forum shopping to exploit more favourable procedures or sanctions, making co-ordinated defence strategies essential. In addition, managing reputational risk and media exposure across jurisdictions has become a critical component of defence planning.

Co-Ordination Mechanisms and Limits

Local counsel co-ordinate strategies to maintain consistency, sometimes pursuing global settlements to resolve multiple investigations. However, jurisdictional limits, differing legal systems and privacy concerns often restrict co-operation and information exchange. Recent trends show an increase in joint investigation teams and mutual legal assistance treaties, which can accelerate evidence sharing but also heighten the need for harmonised defence approaches.

On 6 May 2025, Germany elected a new government led by Chancellor Friedrich Merz, formed through a coalition of CDU, CSU and SPD. The coalition is prioritising reforms in the area of white-collar crime. Key measures include amending the LkSG (see 3.14 ESG-Related Offences), as well as strengthening anti-money laundering efforts through improved inter-agency co-ordination and stricter transparency requirements. Expanded enforcement powers targeting organised crime are also planned.

At the European level, the Council of the European Union set “crime-fighting priorities” for 2026–2029, focusing on serious and organised crime through the European Multidisciplinary Platform Against Criminal Threats (EMPACT). Key areas include disrupting criminal networks, cybercrime, environmental and economic crimes. It should be noted that the proposed EU Anti-Corruption Directive remains under discussion and has not yet been adopted. Its provisions will only take effect once formally approved by the European Parliament and the Council and transposed into national law.