On February 25, 2025, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main ruled (Case No. 10 U 18/24) that a bank that does not disburse a customer’s funds for several days due to a suspicious activity report filed under money laundering law is not obliged to reimburse the customer’s legal fees.
Background to the case
Within a few days, the plaintiff’s account was credited with two large amounts (totaling EUR 1 million). Due to these unusually high amounts, the bank reported the transaction to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in accordance with Section 43 of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG) and temporarily blocked the account. On the day of the second crediting, five days after the first crediting, the plaintiff appeared with a lawyer at the bank, which denied her access to the account balance. A further letter from a lawyer two days later was also unsuccessful. The bank only transferred the amount of EUR 320,000 in the course of the proceedings at first instance; the Regional Court ordered it to pay the remaining EUR 680,000 and to reimburse the pre-litigation legal fees. The bank lodged an appeal against the obligation to pay the legal fees, which was successful before the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court.
Reasoning of the OLG
The OLG Frankfurt found that the bank was neither in default nor had committed a breach of duty at the time the lawyer was instructed.
The defendant was not in default at the time the lawyer’s letter was written. This had only occurred upon the fruitless expiry of the deadline set in the lawyer’s letter.
Furthermore, the defendant had not culpably breached its obligations, at least not up to the time the lawyer was instructed. A reporting obligation under the Money Laundering Act exists if there are facts that indicate that an asset originates from a criminal offense that could constitute a predicate offense to money laundering. According to Section 46 of the Money Laundering Act, a transaction may only be carried out after a suspicion of money laundering has been reported if the FIU or the public prosecutor’s office has given its approval or three working days have passed since the report was made without a prohibition being issued. In this case, the bank had waited a few days longer out of caution, which the court considered to be permissible and not negligent, particularly in view of the large amounts involved and the unusual nature of the problem.
It is irrelevant whether the report initiated by the defendant was lawful. By law, the person who initiates a report is exempt from civil liability. In any case, there was no intentional or grossly negligent false report.
This ruling clarifies the rights and obligations of banks in connection with suspicions of money laundering and emphasizes that customers must bear the costs of legal assistance in such cases themselves, provided that the bank acts in accordance with the law.
