Ruling [DEU] ¦ When AML Duties Override Business Continuity: A German Court Upholds Immediate Account Termination

A dispute at the intersection of banking and financial crime prevention

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.

The background: security firms and a high-value gold deal

The applicants were two German companies belonging to the same corporate group, active in international security services, training, and logistics, with a focus on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Both companies relied on business current accounts with the defendant bank for their entire payment processing.

In March 2025, one of the companies entered into a contract with a Kenyan seller for the purchase of more than six tonnes of gold, with a total transaction volume of around USD 363 million. The contract described the German company as the buyer and set a price of USD 60,000 per kilogram. The gold was said to originate from an African state and to be transported via international airports to Europe. Shortly before the expected inflow of funds connected to this transaction, the bank terminated both accounts with immediate effect, citing statutory restrictions on disclosing reasons.

The companies argued that they were merely acting as logistics providers or intermediaries, not as buyers, and that the account terminations endangered their ability to pay taxes, salaries, and rent, potentially forcing them into insolvency. They sought an interim court order compelling the bank to keep the accounts operational until a final decision in the main proceedings.

Bastian Schwind-Wagner _Follow

"This case shows how quickly access to banking services can disappear when a transaction raises unresolved AML concerns. Even long-standing customer relationships offer little protection if a bank cannot meet its statutory due diligence duties.

For companies operating in high-risk sectors or jurisdictions, the decision underlines the need for clear documentation and consistent transaction structures. Without this, banks may be legally forced to cut ties, regardless of the operational damage for the customer."

The legal framework: payment services versus AML law

Under German civil law, payment service providers are generally obliged to execute payment orders and to justify any refusal. These duties arise from sections 675f and 675o of the German Civil Code. However, they do not apply where execution would violate other legal provisions, in particular AML law.

The decisive provision in this case was section 10(9) sentence 2 of the German Anti-Money Laundering Act. It states that if a bank cannot fulfil its customer due diligence (CDD) obligations, it must not continue the business relationship and must terminate it, regardless of other contractual or statutory rules. The court emphasised that this rule establishes a mandatory duty to end the relationship, not a discretionary option.

Why the court sided with the bank

The court accepted that the bank could rely on AML grounds even though it had not stated them in the termination letters. German case law allows banks to present and substantiate termination reasons later in court proceedings, including reasons that became apparent only after termination.

On the merits, the court found that the proposed gold transaction was riddled with inconsistencies and risk indicators. The contract price appeared significantly below the market price at the relevant time. The role of the German company was unclear, as it was explicitly named as buyer in the contract but later described itself as a mere intermediary. This contradicted both the contractual documents and the company’s registered business purpose.

In addition, the bank was unable to verify whether the gold originated from a conflict or high-risk area within the meaning of the EU Conflict Minerals Regulation. Even though the country of origin was not formally listed as a conflict area, the court pointed out that the EU list is indicative rather than exhaustive and that the risk indicators remained substantial.

Given these factors, the court concluded that the bank could not properly fulfil its AML due diligence obligations. As a result, section 10(9) of the AML Act required the immediate termination of the business relationship. The court also held that this measure was proportionate, especially in light of the transaction size and risk profile.

No protection through interim relief

The applicants’ attempt to obtain a preliminary injunction failed because they could not establish a right to continued account access. The court stressed that forcing the bank to reopen the accounts would effectively anticipate the outcome of the main proceedings and would contradict the bank’s statutory AML duties.

The fact that the companies claimed to have no alternative accounts did not change the assessment. The bank presented indications that the corporate group had access to other domestic and foreign accounts, which weakened the argument of existential necessity.

Implications for banks and corporate clients

This judgment underlines that AML obligations can outweigh the commercial interests of customers, even where the immediate termination of accounts causes serious operational disruption. For banks, the decision provides judicial backing for decisive action where due diligence cannot be completed, particularly in complex, cross-border commodity transactions.

For companies, the case serves as a warning that opaque transaction structures, unclear roles, and inconsistencies between documentation and actual business models can quickly lead to loss of banking access. In high-risk sectors such as precious metals and international logistics, transparency and consistency are not only compliance best practices but prerequisites for maintaining basic financial infrastructure.

A signal from the courts

By upholding the bank’s actions, the Regional Court of Dortmund sent a clear message: when AML risks cannot be resolved, German law does not merely allow banks to exit customer relationships, it obliges them to do so. The subsequent confirmation by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm on appeal, albeit with a correction to the cost allocation, reinforces this approach and highlights the judiciary’s strong support for strict AML enforcement in the financial system.

Dive deeper

• Justiz NRW ¦ Landgericht Dortmund, Urteil vom 23.5.2025, 3 O 157/25 ¦ Link