The Court of Justice of the European Union has issued a major Grand Chamber ruling that will matter for competition law, corporate investigations, and data protection compliance across the EU. In Joined Cases C‑258/23 to C‑260/23, the Court held that business emails exchanged between employees and managers can fall within the protection of Article 7 of the Charter as “communications”, but that their seizure during a competition inspection at business premises does not necessarily require prior authorisation from a court.

The Luxembourg District Court, sitting in correctional matters, convicted a dentist of attempted aggravated tax fraud for income tax years 2017 and 2018, while acquitting her of both completed tax fraud and money laundering by possession.

On 11 June 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an important judgment in Case C‑81/24, Jenec, concerning the interaction between access to basic payment accounts, anti-money laundering obligations, counter-terrorist financing controls, and sanctions lists issued by a third country.

A recent decision of the Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main addresses a question that is increasingly important in sanctions compliance: who has the authority to decide whether a specific asset must be treated as frozen under EU Russia sanctions?

On 10 June 2026, the General Court annulled a statement of position by the European Court of Auditors that had refused to lift the duty of confidentiality of 12 EU officials whom the European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO) wanted to hear as witnesses in a criminal investigation.

A recent Luxembourg cassation ruling highlights a recurring issue in financial crime cases: when a defendant seeks immediate review of an interlocutory criminal decision, the highest court may refuse to hear the case if the procedural stage is not yet ripe for cassation. That point matters in money laundering proceedings because these cases often begin with a long chain of investigative steps, cross-checked statements, financial intelligence reports, searches, and analysis of electronic data before any trial judgment is reached.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has taken a clear stance on how EU sanctions law applies to assets held in trust. In Joined Cases C-428/24 and C-476/24, the Court ruled that funds and economic resources held in a trust can be treated as “belonging” to or being “controlled” by a beneficiary who is listed under Article 2(1) of Regulation No 269/2014, even where the trust deed and the applicable trust law prohibit that beneficiary from directly enjoying or disposing of the assets while listed.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has issued an important judgment in Case C-483/23 on the application of EU Russia sanctions to assets placed in a trust. The ruling concerns Article 2(1) of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, the EU asset freezing regime adopted in response to actions undermining Ukraine’s territorial integrity, sovereignty and independence.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has delivered a joint judgment in Joined Cases C‑684/24 and C‑685/24 concerning the interaction between EU anti‑money laundering rules and Italian law on trust mandates (mandato fiduciario). The questions came from the Italian Council of State after a number of Italian trust companies challenged national implementing measures that required disclosure of beneficial ownership information for trust mandates governed by Italian law. At issue were the validity and interpretation of several provisions of Directive (EU) 2015/849, as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843, in particular the rules on trustees’ obligations to hold and provide information on beneficial owners and the conditions under which that information may be publicly accessible.

The Luxembourg Court of Appeal has substantially reduced the criminal liability of a notary prosecuted for alleged failures under the Law of 12 November 2004 on combating money laundering and terrorist financing. The court overturned findings relating to risk assessment, customer due diligence and suspicious transaction reporting, while upholding convictions for inadequate internal AML/CFT policies and insufficient staff training.

The Luxembourg Court of Appeal has confirmed that a notary may incur criminal liability for failing to report a transaction suspected of involving a predicate offence, even where the professional does not identify the precise offence at issue. The judgment, delivered on 13 May 2026, arose from a proposed sale of an elderly and cognitively vulnerable person’s home at a price substantially below its assessed market value.

A recent decision by the German Federal Court of Justice serves as an important clarification in financial crime cases involving so-called ‘account mules’: providing a bank account for criminal proceeds may be punishable, but the correct label is not always money laundering.

The Luxembourg District Court has convicted the sole legal and de facto manager of a bankrupt private limited company for fraudulent bankruptcy, money laundering by holding and using criminal proceeds, simple bankruptcy offences, tax fraud attempted through inaccurate tax reporting, and failures relating to corporate accounts.

A recent judgment from Frankfurt am Main provides a detailed look at how EU sanctions operate when frozen assets are embedded in complex trust and offshore structures. The case arose from an attempt by an insolvency administrator to force a German bank to release almost one million euros held on accounts of an insolvent company. The court ultimately confirmed that the funds must remain frozen under EU sanctions law, even though neither the company nor its direct shareholders were themselves listed.

In its judgment of 26 March 2026 in joined cases C‑696/23 P, C‑704/23 P, C‑711/23 P, C‑35/24 P and C‑111/24 P, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered five appeals brought by Dmitry Pumpyanskiy, Tigran Khudaverdyan, Viktor Rashnikov, Dmitry Mazepin and German Khan against EU asset-freeze listings.

The Court of Justice’s recent ruling in Case C‑363/24 clarifies a nuanced corner of the market abuse framework: a communication that someone has been added to an issuer’s insider list and is prohibited from selling can, under certain circumstances, amount to inside information. For practitioners, compliance officers and investigators in financial crime, the judgment sharpens how to assess disclosures, the required precision and credibility of information, and the interplay with legitimate contractual obligations to trade. This article explains the decision’s key points, why it matters for market abuse enforcement and internal controls, and practical steps to reduce legal and reputational risk.

In March 2026 the General Court dismissed the European Central Bank’s objection that BANK 1’s annulment action was inadmissible and allowed the case to proceed on the merits. The dispute concerns a 16 October 2024 email from the ECB’s Joint Supervisory Team (JST) that communicated the ECB’s view on the prudential treatment of Deferred Tax Assets (DTAs) originating in BANK 1’s Brazilian subsidiary and consolidated into the parent’s accounts. The bank asked the Court to annul that communication. The JST had concluded that those DTAs did not meet the conditions in Article 39(2) of the Capital Requirements Regulation (CRR) and therefore had to be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 (CET1) capital under Articles 36(1)(c), 38 and 48 CRR. The ECB contended the email was purely informational and non‑binding and so not susceptible to judicial review under Article 263 TFEU.

The Dutch Supreme Court has issued an interim ruling that could have wider implications for financial institutions carrying out customer due diligence (CDD) under anti-money laundering rules. The case concerns a cardholder who refused to complete an online identification process requested by CARD SERVICES1 (CS1), because it required her to upload a photo of her identity document and a selfie. CS1 argued that this step was necessary under the Dutch Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act, known as the Wwft (Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme). The cardholder objected, mainly because she did not want her photo and identity document image stored by CS1.

On 12 March 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered a judgment that significantly clarifies how EU financial sanctions apply to companies linked to designated individuals. The case arose from a dispute in Lithuania, but its implications reach banks, compliance teams, corporate lawyers and companies across the EU.

The Court of Justice of the European Union’s judgment in Case C‑465/24 (SBK Art v STAK and Open Pass) clarifies a critical point of EU sanctions law with wide-reaching consequences for corporate governance, investors and compliance teams: where an entity or person is listed in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014, the “freezing of funds” prevents absolutely and unconditionally the exercise of rights attached to securities such as depositary receipts, including the rights to attend meetings and to vote. That interpretation puts firms, trustees and service providers that manage voting rights and shareholder meetings on notice that sanctions can cut off not only transfers of economic value but also participatory powers that influence corporate decision-making. For a financial crime audience, the ruling crystallizes how sanctions interact with corporate voting mechanisms and highlights the operational, legal and compliance risks that arise when sanctioned ownership is held through intermediated structures.

A Luxembourg appellate court has confirmed that failing to file beneficial ownership information can lead to criminal liability for the person who actually controls the company, not just for the entity itself. That point matters far beyond corporate filings. Beneficial ownership registers sit at the core of anti-money laundering architecture because they help identify who ultimately owns or controls legal persons that can be used to move, conceal, or layer illicit funds.

The Higher Regional Court of Nürnberg–Fürth ruled on 23 February 2026 to lift a provisional asset arrest that had been imposed by the local court of Nürnberg on 24 November 2025. The arrest had targeted cash balances of a defendant (DR) after prosecutors linked portions of Bitcoin transfers within a family network to historically tainted coins originating from the Silk Road dark‑market cluster. The procedural history includes a suspicious activity report (SAR) from an operator of a peer-to-peer crypto-asset marketplace, blockchain analytics indicating so‑called indirect alerts linking incoming transfers to darknet and high‑risk exchange sources, a freeze executed by the public prosecutor, and a house search. Subsequent on‑chain movement showed substantial volumes of Bitcoin moving through multiple intermediate wallets (“hops”), later partly exchanged into euros and deposited into bank accounts, including a €10,000 transfer to DR’s account, of which €7,839.59 remained and was arrested. DR challenged the arrest and prevailed on complaint; costs were borne by the state.

On 5 February 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an important judgment clarifying how EU sanctions against Russia apply to the import of certain goods, including passenger vehicles. The case arose from a dispute in Germany concerning a second‑hand car bought in Russia and later brought into the European Union by a Russian citizen residing in Düsseldorf. While the facts may appear narrow, the ruling has broad implications for customs authorities, compliance professionals, and anyone dealing with goods covered by EU restrictive measures.

On 29 January 2026, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered an important judgment in Case C‑291/24 concerning the enforcement of anti‑money laundering obligations against financial institutions. The ruling clarifies how Member States may attribute AML breaches to legal persons and draws a clear line between corporate liability and the individual liability of managers or employees.

A German appellate court has rejected an application seeking an interim order that would have required a public-sector bank to continue providing giro accounts to a corporate customer linked to Iran.

On 18 December 2025, Advocate General Norkus delivered an important Opinion in Case C‑798/24, Jautiva (i), addressing a question that sits at the crossroads of company law, financial crime prevention, and data protection. The case arose from Latvia, but its implications extend across the European Union, especially for policymakers, compliance professionals, and anyone involved in corporate transparency initiatives.

On 18 December 2025 the District Court of Diekirch rendered a judgment confirming an agreement concluded on 30 October 2025 between the Public Prosecutor and a Luxembourg limited liability company (hereinafter “the company”) that admitted committing aggravated tax fraud for the tax years 2018–2022 and the related offence of laundering. The prosecution followed a denunciation by the tax administration and a criminal financial report. The facts concern the non-declaration of securities held in a custody account and their omission from the company’s financial statements, which led to a systematic understatement of the company’s taxable fortune and a corresponding tax advantage of €55,143.78 over five years. The company reimbursed the tax due and accepted responsibility; the court imposed a fine of €35,000 and ordered the payment of procedural costs of €8.

The fight against money laundering in Europe continues to revolve around one key lever: transparency of beneficial ownership. The recent Opinion of Advocate General Richard de la Tour in the joined cases C‑684/24 and C‑685/24 (Across Fiduciaria and Others) is a major step in clarifying how far this transparency can go for trusts and “similar legal arrangements” – and what safeguards must exist for privacy and effective judicial protection.

A German administrative court has dismissed an application for interim relief in a dispute centered on the Transparency Register and the extent of a company’s duties when an inconsistency notice is filed. The applicant, a German limited partnership, argued that it should not have to obtain and submit the charter and related documents of a foreign foundation in its ownership chain. The court disagreed, but it did so on procedural grounds: the application was found inadmissible because the company lacked a sufficient legal interest in the requested declaration.

On 26 November 2025 the District Court of Luxembourg’s 23rd criminal chamber rendered a judgment on a negotiated plea in the matter of the State Prosecutor versus a former 25% shareholder of a now-dissolved company. The prosecution’s dossier stems from administrative tax audits and revision work by the Administration des Contributions Directes (ACD) and subsequent criminal referrals by tax offices for the 2013–2015 tax years. The case originates in detailed ACD findings that the company’s accounting records were unreliable or unavailable, which led the tax authority to reconstruct taxable income on the basis of presumed margins and to treat sizable unrecorded receipts as hidden profit distributions.

On 26 November 2025 the District Court of Luxembourg, sixteenth chamber, delivered judgment in a criminal case brought by the Public Prosecutor against the manager and sole shareholder of a small money-transfer operator. The accused operated two branches of a transfer agency business in Luxembourg between January 2014 and December 2015. The indictment charged him with multiple breaches of Luxembourg’s anti–money laundering and counter–terrorist financing law (the amended law of 12 November 2004), namely failures in customer due diligence, absence of adequate internal procedures and training, and failure to report suspicious transactions to the financial intelligence unit.

On 13 November 2025 the Tribunal d’arrondissement de Luxembourg, seventh chamber, validated a negotiated judgment (judgement sur accord) settling criminal proceedings arising from discrepancies uncovered during the execution of two German mutual‑legal‑assistance requests concerning alleged tax fraud. The case centered on SOCIETE1.), a Luxembourg domiciliation company, and an individual lawyer, PERSONNE1.), who both admitted that a declaration lodged on 11 September 2019 in the Luxembourg Register of Beneficial Owners (RBE) was inaccurate. The material issue was that the RBE entry identified the lawyer as the sole beneficial owner of SOCIETE1.), whereas documentary evidence – a nominee agreement, shareholder register extracts and an ownership chart – pointed to PERSONNE4.) as the actual ultimate beneficiary. The court accepted an agreement between the parties and the public prosecutor: each defendant was fined €50,000 and certain seized documents and electronic media were ordered confiscated.

On 13 November 2025 the Luxembourg Tribunal d’arrondissement, seventh criminal chamber, approved a negotiated judgment in a prosecution that began after police and administrative inspections revealed that a company operating business-center services had in practice provided domiciliation services without being authorised to do so. The public prosecutor and the two defendants – the limited liability company formerly known under another name and its legal manager – concluded an agreement under the procedure for judgments on agreement (articles 563–578 Code of Criminal Procedure). The court recorded the facts admitted by the parties, accepted the agreed penalties and ordered the confiscation of seized documents and digital records.

Three Portuguese cases referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union concern seizures of business emails by the national competition authority during investigations into suspected anticompetitive conduct.

The Tribunal d’arrondissement of Luxembourg, twenty-third chamber, delivered a judgment on an agreement dated 22 October 2025 after a public hearing following the law of 24 February 2015 on judgments by agreement. The prosecution brought charges against an expert accountant firm (here anonymised as SOCIETE1.) SARL) for breaches of Luxembourg’s anti‑money‑laundering and counter‑terrorist financing regime. The firm voluntarily appeared and accepted a negotiated disposition reached with the Procureur d’Etat. The underlying investigation was triggered by police reports and a judicial information file that identified shortcomings in client due diligence, internal organisation and cooperation with authorities.

In a recent decision arising from the sanctions environment of 2022, the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt made clear that banks may not simply block or park payments from Russia without a solid legal basis. The case concerned a German import-export company that received a payment of €36,240 from a Russian business partner for the delivery of industrial pumps. Although the money reached the company’s account, the bank refused to make it available and instead deposited the funds with a local court.

The recent Advocate General’s opinion in Case C‑81/24 (Jenec) highlights a difficult question at the intersection of financial inclusion and anti-money laundering (AML) risk management: may a bank refuse to open a payment account with basic features solely because the applicant’s name appears on a third‑country sanctions list – in this case, the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) list – even though that person has not been convicted of the relevant offence nor been subject to EU, UN or national restrictive measures? The opinion considers how Directive 2014/92/EU (the Payment Accounts Directive) must be read together with Directive (EU) 2015/849 (the AML/CTF Directive) and accompanying EBA guidance.

Poland’s Personal Data Protection Office (UODO) has imposed an administrative fine of PLN 18,416,400 (approx. EUR 4,326,749) on a bank for unlawfully processing personal data by scanning identity documents of customers and potential customers. The decision follows a comprehensive inspection into how the bank collected, processed, and justified the copying of ID documents between April 1, 2019, and September 23, 2020.

On July 3, 2025, Advocate General Tamara Ćapeta delivered her opinion in the significant case C-84/24 before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The core question: Is it sufficient for the freezing of a company’s bank accounts that a sanctioned person holds exactly 50% of its shares?

In a landmark ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed claims against three major international banks — Deutsche Bank, Standard Chartered Bank (SCB), and Danske Bank — alleging they aided terrorist organizations in Afghanistan between 2011 and 2016. The plaintiffs, American service members and civilians injured or killed in terrorist attacks, had sued the banks under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act (JASTA). They claimed the banks indirectly facilitated terrorism by providing banking services to entities linked with terrorist funding, including Pakistani fertilizer companies whose products were used to make bombs, money laundering operations benefiting terrorist groups, and European tax fraud schemes.

Germany’s Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) has sharpened one of the key tools in the fight against organized crime and money laundering: the confiscation of assets even where they are only partly financed with illicit funds. In a high‑profile case linked to a Berlin-based clan, the court clarified that a legal–illegal “mixed financing” of real estate is sufficient to justify asset seizure. For financial crime practitioners, this decision is a major marker for how vigorously German authorities can now strip criminal networks of their wealth.

Introduction: A Complex Financial Crime Unfolds

In a significant legal development in Luxembourg, the District Court recently delivered a judgment related to a large-scale fraud and money laundering scheme involving more than €61 million. The case exposes how criminals use fictitious companies and international bank accounts to divert and launder corporate funds, highlighting the complexity of transnational financial crimes.

Introduction

A recent ruling by the Luxembourg Tribunal d’arrondissement involving the voluntary liquidation of a financial holding company underscores the complex interplay between corporate liquidation processes and anti-money laundering (AML) obligations. The case revolves around the refusal of certain parties to transfer recovered funds due to concerns linked to AML regulations, illustrating the legal and regulatory challenges companies face in handling dormant or frozen assets.

The recent opinion delivered by Advocate General Ćapeta on 3 July 2025 in Case C-291/24 addresses a significant legal question concerning the imposition of sanctions on legal persons under EU anti-money laundering law.

A Berlin court has held that a bank unlawfully discriminated against a trans customer by delaying her first-name and salutation change for months and demanding extra documentation not required in comparable cases. In a judgment dated May 14, 2025 (AG Berlin-Mitte, 23 C 14/25; not yet final), the court awarded €2,000 in non-material damages under the General Equal Treatment Act (AGG).

A German administrative court has rejected a lawsuit brought by a luxury jeweler against the public publication of an asset confiscation measure on the authority’s website. The decision confirms that regulators may publicly identify businesses involved in serious breaches of anti-money laundering obligations, even when the underlying misconduct dates back several years.

Introduction

In a recent judgment delivered by the District Court of Luxembourg on June 4, 2025, a limited liability company, SOCIETE1, was acquitted of charges relating to non-compliance with the obligations under Luxembourg’s beneficial ownership registry law. The case highlights critical issues surrounding the enforcement of transparency laws in corporate governance and the significance of intent in financial crime prosecutions.

The court’s decision turned chiefly on obligations under the German Anti‑Money‑Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG). The bank required legal guardians (Betreuer) who manage clients’ payment accounts to present an official identity document showing their residential address. The court held that this practice is consistent with the GwG because the statute and BaFin’s interpretation require customer identification that includes residential address data. The plaintiff’s argument – that address collection is unnecessary in some cases and that guardians may have legitimate reasons to keep their home address confidential – did not outweigh the bank’s statutory duties.

A decision of the Regional Court of Dortmund from 23 May 2025 offers a detailed look at how far anti-money laundering obligations can go when banks face transactions they cannot adequately assess. In case 3 O 157/25, the court rejected an application for a preliminary injunction aimed at forcing a bank to continue two corporate current accounts that had been terminated with immediate effect. The ruling confirms that, under German law, AML compliance duties may require banks to end customer relationships even where this threatens the customer’s ongoing business operations.

Introduction

In a recent ruling dated May 14, 2025, the District Court of Luxembourg held a limited liability company, SOCIETE1, accountable for failing to comply with the legal obligations under Luxembourg’s Law of January 13, 2019, regarding the registration of beneficial owners. This case highlights the increasing scrutiny on transparency in corporate ownership and the consequences for companies that neglect their compliance duties.

Introduction

A recent ruling by the Luxembourg Court of Cassation on March 27, 2025, has clarified the responsibilities of banks concerning customer identification and transaction monitoring under anti-money laundering laws. The case involved allegations against SOCIETE1, a bank accused by heirs of failing to prevent the misappropriation of funds transferred through its accounts. The judgment underscores the importance of thorough due diligence while balancing the practical limits of banking operations.

On 26 February 2025, the Luxembourg Court of Appeal delivered a landmark ruling in the field of anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing (AML/CFT) concerning the application of the non bis in idem principle when both administrative and criminal sanctions are pursued for the same conduct. This report reviews the case details, legal reasoning, and implications for the financial sector and regulatory framework.

Background and case overview

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Frankfurt has held that a bank does not owe its customer reimbursement of pre‑litigation legal fees incurred in response to a payment freeze after the bank filed a suspicious activity report (SAR) with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and refused payout. The decision, which is not subject to further appeal, modifies the Wiesbaden Regional Court’s judgment by denying the claim for €9,875.22 in pre‑action legal costs (plus interest), while leaving intact the first‑instance cost allocation. The court set the appellate fee value at €9,875.22 and declined to admit revision.

On 13 February 2025 the Second Criminal Senate of the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) set aside the Landgericht Aachen’s decision ordering the independent forfeiture (“selbstständige Einziehung”) of four real estate properties tied to proceeds from drug trafficking. The case raises key issues for financial-crime practitioners: when and how courts must establish that assets “derive” from criminal activity under the pre‑18 March 2021 statute, how mixed (legal/illegal) financing must be apportioned to determine the “contaminated” share, and the necessary depth of fact-finding to satisfy proportionality guarantees under Article 14 GG. The BGH sent the matter back to another chamber of the Landgericht for a new hearing and decision.

Introduction

A recent criminal judgment delivered by the District Court of Luxembourg sheds light on the critical responsibilities of legal professionals in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. A notary, referred to as PERSONNE1., was found guilty of multiple breaches of the anti-money laundering (AML) law, demonstrating the severe consequences of neglecting due diligence and regulatory obligations in financial transactions.

Abuse of Vulnerable Victims in Real Estate Transactions

In a recent ruling by the District Court of Luxembourg, two individuals were convicted of abusing an elderly and cognitively impaired person in a property transaction significantly undervalued compared to the market price. The court found that the defendants took advantage of the victim’s diminished mental capacity, language barriers, and physical frailty to coerce the sale of a house for just 200,000 euros, while its true market value exceeded 800,000 euros. The presence of a punitive clause further highlighted the exploitative nature of the agreement. This case exemplifies how financial crimes often target the most vulnerable, leveraging legal and procedural mechanisms to legitimize unfair transactions.

Background of the Case

A recent decision by the Luxembourg Court of Appeal sheds light on the responsibilities and limitations of electronic money institutions (EMIs) when it comes to blocking client funds amid suspicions of financial crime. The case involved SOCIETE1.) S.C.A., an EMI managing payment accounts within a group offering online marketplace services, and SOCIETE4.) LIMITED, a seller whose payment account was blocked by SOCIETE1.) due to alleged identity verification issues and suspicions related to money laundering.

A significant judgment from the EU General Court (First Chamber) on January 29, 2025, offers a detailed look at how the European Union applies and justifies restrictive measures (asset freezes) against Russian business figures in connection with the war in Ukraine. The Court dismissed the action brought by Russian businessman Alexander Semenovich Vinokurov, affirming the legality of his continued listing and the broader legal framework enabling sanctions against business actors in sectors generating substantial revenue for the Russian government.

In a recent judgment rendered by the Luxembourg District Court on January 23, 2025, SOCIETE1 S.A. was found guilty of breaching Luxembourg’s anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The company failed to comply with its obligation to perform adequate due diligence and timely reporting related to a high-risk client domiciled at its registered address. The case arose from a European investigation involving Belgian authorities, which uncovered serious allegations against the ultimate beneficial owner (UBO) of SOCIETE4 S.A., a company domiciled by SOCIETE1. The UBO, PERSONNE2., was linked to ongoing criminal investigations in Belgium for corruption, forgery, tax fraud, and money laundering.

The Higher Regional Court in Düsseldorf confirmed that a cooperative bank (Genossenschaftsbank) was entitled to terminate two giro account agreements with a corporate customer. The case arose after the bank issued an ordinary termination of the accounts in July 2024, effective September 2024. The customer sought interim relief, arguing that the termination was unjustified and threatened its economic existence.

In a recent judgment dated November 28, 2024, the Court of Cassation of Luxembourg upheld the conviction of a lawyer, referred to as PERSONNE1., for multiple breaches of the country’s anti-money laundering (AML) laws. The case centers on violations of the amended Law of November 12, 2004, which governs measures to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. PERSONNE1., acting as a domiciliary agent for a client company, failed to meet her legal obligations related to enhanced due diligence, internal procedures, risk assessment, and cooperation with authorities. The Court rejected her appeal against an increased fine and confirmed the findings of the appellate court regarding her professional misconduct.

A recent decision by a Higher Administrative Court in Germany has drawn sharp attention in compliance and financial crime circles. The court ordered a public savings bank, a Sparkasse, to open and maintain a giro account for a controversial association, despite the association being monitored by the domestic intelligence service and linked in official reports to extremist narratives. The ruling clarifies how far public banks may go when invoking risk, reputation, and constitutional concerns to deny access to the financial system.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) delivered a clear ruling on 5 September 2024 in Case C‑109/23 (Jemerak) that has immediate practical implications for how Member State professionals handle transactions involving Russian‑established legal persons under the EU’s Russia sanctions regime. The judgment interprets Article 5n(2) of Council Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 (as amended) and holds that certain notarial acts, subsequent notarial steps to execute property sales, and interpreter services provided in the context of notarial authentication do not fall within the prohibition on providing “legal advisory services” to legal persons established in Russia. For practitioners working at the intersection of property, sanctions and anti‑money‑laundering (AML) compliance, this decision reduces legal uncertainty about the permissibility of routine, state‑delegated formalities necessary to register or transfer immovable property in Member States with mandatory notarial systems.

In a landmark ruling on July 9, 2024, the Court of Appeal in Luxembourg confirmed the convictions of three individuals involved in a large-scale corporate fraud and money laundering scheme tied to the insolvency of SOCIETE10. S.A. The accused had entered into fictitious employment contracts with the company to fraudulently obtain salaries and benefits without providing actual work. These fabricated contracts were used as a pretext to receive payments, including luxury expenses such as private travel, housing, and vehicles, which were funded through the misappropriation of company assets.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has drawn an important boundary in the EU’s anti–money laundering architecture. In Case C‑22/23, decided on 18 April 2024, the Court held that a property owner who leases space to companies and allows those tenants to register their statutory seat at that address does not, by that fact alone, qualify as a “trust or company service provider” under Article 3(7)(c) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 (as amended by Directive (EU) 2018/843).

In a March 6, 2024 decision (1 StR 308/23) the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) overturned parts of a Saarbrücken regional court judgment involving large-scale manipulation of revenue records from gaming machines. The accused operated gambling arcades and used a device to alter the data readouts (“Auslesestreifen”) produced by specialized data extraction units connected to the slot machines. Those engineered readouts were then used in the businesses’ bookkeeping and forwarded to the tax advisor, resulting in materially understated tax declarations. The trial court convicted the male defendant of tax evasion in 17 instances and the female defendant of aiding and abetting in 16 instances, imposed custodial sentences (one suspended) and fined the corporate entities for each of the identified tax offenses. The BGH’s ruling substantially re-evaluates how the sequence of acts should be legally characterized, the possible additional criminal exposure for falsifying technical records, and the procedural consequences flowing from those legal assessments.

Since 2016, plaintiffs have increasingly used “aiding and abetting” theories to hold multinational companies liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) for terrorist acts conducted by groups such as ISIS. These claims have involved various industries including technology, social media, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, construction, and banking. However, courts have applied varying tests on what constitutes “aiding and abetting” terrorism.

Introduction

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), sitting as Grand Chamber, ruled on 22 November 2022 in Joined Cases C‑37/20 (WM) and C‑601/20 (Sovim SA) that the provision of Directive (EU) 2018/843 (5th AMLD) mandating unrestricted public access to beneficial ownership (UBO) registers is invalid. The Court found that allowing “any member of the general public” to access UBO data constitutes a serious interference with the rights to private life and data protection under Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and that such interference is not strictly necessary or proportionate to the AML/CFT objective.

Background and case overview

In its judgment of 8 August 2022 (5 StR 372/21), the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) addressed two key issues in German money laundering law following the 2021 reform: who can fulfill the aggravated offense under § 261(4) StGB (new version), and how courts must handle confiscation when the substantive criminal provision has changed between the time of the offense and the judgment.

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) issued a pivotal ruling on April 20, 2021 (XI ZR 511/19), clarifying the scope and strictness of customer due diligence obligations under Germany’s Anti-Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG) in the context of estate administration. The decision confirms that banks must conduct full identity verification of a court-appointed estate administrator (Nachlasspfleger) acting for unknown heirs before executing transfers — even for modest account balances — and that notarized ID copies are not sufficient. For financial institutions and legal practitioners, the judgment settles key questions about the acceptable methods of identity verification, the applicability of simplified due diligence, and the boundaries of proportionality.

The Federal Constitutional Court held that a residential search ordered on suspicion of money laundering violated Article 13(1) of the Basic Law because the courts below had not identified concrete, non‑speculative indications that the funds at issue derived from a catalogue predicate offence under § 261(1) sentence 2 StGB. The decision clarifies that, for a search of the home to be justified in a money‑laundering investigation, there must be both indications of a money‑laundering act and specific, articulable grounds to suspect one of the statutory predicate crimes.

A former customer applied to reopen an account with an online bank. The bank refused. It then admitted it was systematically blocking all former customers by retaining their personal data in a “blacklist” (a warning file) to prevent any new account openings. The stated rationale: obligations under the German Banking Act (Kreditwesengesetz, KWG) to implement safety measures against money laundering risks.

A 2018 decision by the Higher Regional Court in Frankfurt has become a key reference point for compliance professionals in financial institutions. The ruling addresses a recurring question in anti-money laundering practice: how fast is “unverzüglich”, and how far do the powers of a money laundering officer really go?

In March 2017, the Court of Justice of the European Union, sitting as the Grand Chamber, delivered a judgment that shapes how financial institutions, regulators, and compliance teams understand EU sanctions law. The Rosneft case addressed the legality, interpretation, and enforceability of EU restrictive measures adopted in response to Russia’s actions in Ukraine. At its core, the ruling clarified how far EU courts can go in reviewing sanctions adopted under the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), and what those sanctions mean in practice for banks and other market participants.

The Munich Regional Court’s decision of 10 December 2013 confronts a paradigmatic corporate governance and anti‑corruption failure: a long‑running system of off‑book “black cash” and sham consultant contracts used to channel funds for corrupt payments, identified within a global industrial group. The company brought a partial claim against a former board member, alleging that he breached his duties by failing to establish and to supervise an effective compliance organization, thereby causing substantial damages. The court found for the company and awarded €15 million in damages while allowing a limited counterclaim by the former executive for stock bonuses, to be settled concurrently (Zug um Zug) against payment of the damages award.