Bundesbank Finanzsanktionen — frozen-funds reporting

In Germany, a freeze on a customer’s money is reported to the Deutsche Bundesbank, not to BaFin and not to the FIU. The office that receives the report is the Servicezentrum Finanzsanktionen in Munich. It also sends the one-week circular queries that every bank answers, decides release requests and receives the Article 5r transfer reports on Russia. This guide covers who gets which report, the one-week circular and the “Fehlanzeige”, the 50% control presumption the Bundesbank now applies, and the 2026 reform that made a missed report a crime under § 18(5a) AWG.

1. Three authorities, three kinds of report

EU sanctions regulations apply directly in Germany. The Bundesbank’s FAQ makes the point plainly: no national act is needed to freeze an account, and the freeze applies from the day the EU regulation enters into force. What German law does is decide which authority receives what. Under the Außenwirtschaftsgesetz (AWG), the Bundesbank is the competent authority wherever a measure concerns “funds” (Gelder) in the sanctions sense. That covers far more than account balances. It includes cheques, money claims, securities, derivatives, interest, dividends, credit lines and guarantees.

The three bodies tell each other at once when one of them receives a report on funds or economic resources (§ 10(3)–(4) SanktDG). That does not let a firm choose a channel. A payment institution that freezes a balance reports to the Bundesbank. The ZfS form is for the listed person, not for the bank.

Two other duties sit alongside. If the facts also suggest money laundering or terrorist financing, the suspicious transaction report under § 43 GwG goes to the FIU as usual. The Bundesbank’s Merkblatt adds that the counter-terrorism regime in Regulation (EU) 2017/1509 imposes reporting duties toward the FIU as well. A freeze report never replaces a suspicious transaction report.

2. The one-week circular and the “Fehlanzeige”

Each EU regime contains an information article. In the Russia asset-freeze regime it is Article 8 of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014: anyone holding information that would help compliance, such as accounts and amounts frozen, must supply it to the competent authority where they are resident or located, within two weeks of acquiring it. In Germany that authority is the SZ FiSankt.

The Bundesbank does not wait for those reports. When the EU lists new persons, or changes the names, aliases or identifiers of persons already listed, the SZ FiSankt sends an e-mail circular (Rundschreiben) to the credit institutions and crypto custodians established in Germany. The circular asks each recipient to report any frozen funds it holds. According to the Bundesbank’s Merkblatt, the normal answer window is one week. An institution with nothing to report must still answer with a nil return, the Fehlanzeige.

That gap matters for payment firms. The Bundesbank’s own documents name credit institutions and crypto custodians as the circular’s addressees. An institution licensed under the ZAG should not assume it is on the distribution list. Its own trigger is the listing itself, picked up by its screening, and its own deadline is the one in the EU regulation.

Reports go by e-mail to sz.finanzsanktionen@bundesbank.de. The Bundesbank publishes no mandatory form for freeze reports, but each regime defines the minimum content. In Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 that means identification of the holder, the amount or market value at the date of freezing and at the date of reporting, and a breakdown by type of asset. The information is confidential. The Bundesbank uses it only to apply the sanctions and passes it to the Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy. It does not disclose it to third parties.

3. Owned or controlled: the 50% presumption since EM System

A freeze reaches funds a listed person owns, holds or controls. So an unlisted company can have its account frozen because of who stands behind it. The Bundesbank revised its FAQ on 16 June 2026 to follow the Court of Justice’s judgment of 12 March 2026 in Case C-84/24 (EM System). The working rules for a German payment firm are now:

• If a listed person holds at least 50% of an unlisted company, there is a rebuttable presumption that the listed person controls the company’s funds. Until the presumption is rebutted, treat those funds as frozen and report them.
• Control can exist below 50%. Indicators include a close family relationship between the company’s decision-makers and the listed person, or economic dependence on them.
• Holdings of several listed persons in the same company are added together.
• A listed beneficial owner under § 3 GwG does not freeze the company automatically. The GwG threshold is 25%, and the sanctions test is control, not the AML definition.

For an unlisted company outside the EU that a listed person controls, the Bundesbank’s view is stricter. Payments to it will normally breach the ban on making funds available indirectly. Payments into a frozen account inside the EU, by contrast, are allowed: the credit is booked and frozen with the rest (FAQ B.13a).

4. The other reports the SZ FiSankt receives

A payment firm with Russian-connected customers can owe three further reports to the same Munich office. They run on their own calendars.

Article 5r covers transfers of funds out of the Union above EUR 100,000, whether made in one operation or several. The 40% ownership test looks at holdings by entities established in Russia, Russian nationals and natural persons residing in Russia. For a payment institution the Article 5r(2) report is a data job: tag the in-scope customers once at onboarding, then filter their outbound non-EU transfers each half-year. Check the current text of the regulation each time a sanctions package amends it.

5. Releases and exemptions

Every EU freeze regime lets the competent authority release funds in defined cases. Examples are basic needs such as food, rent and medical care (e.g. Art. 4(1)(a) Regulation (EU) No 269/2014) and debts owed to unlisted creditors that arose before the listing (Art. 6). For funds, the Bundesbank is the authority that decides. The FAQ says applications need no form and can be made in writing or by e-mail to the SZ FiSankt. Anyone with a legitimate interest can apply, including the customer or the payment institution.

One cross-border point helps payment firms. Suppose another Member State’s authority has authorised a transfer of frozen funds. In the Bundesbank’s view, those funds are then no longer frozen, and no second German authorisation is needed before crediting them. The same applies to a payment from outside the EU for a listed person that another Member State has already authorised. Keep the foreign authorisation in the case file.

6. Since 2026, a missed report is a crime

Germany transposed Directive (EU) 2024/1226 through the Gesetz zur Anpassung von Straftatbeständen und Sanktionen bei Verstößen gegen restriktive Maßnahmen der Europäischen Union, published in the Bundesgesetzblatt on 5 February 2026 (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 27). The government bill (Bundestag Drucksache 21/2508) rewrote § 18(5a) AWG. It now punishes two failures with imprisonment of up to one year or a fine:

• No. 1 — a listed person who does not report, or reports wrongly, incompletely or late, funds or economic resources they own, hold or control;
• No. 2 — anyone who does not pass to the competent authority, or passes wrongly, incompletely or late, information on such funds that they obtained in the exercise of a professional duty.

Number 2 covers a compliance officer at a bank or payment institution. Legal-advice professions are exempt for information entrusted to them in that capacity (§ 18(13) AWG). For companies, § 30 OWiG allows a fine of up to EUR 10 million for these offences. The bill notes that this is above the EUR 8 million minimum the directive requires. The reform also moved many breaches of financial sanctions from administrative offences into § 18 AWG, and it raised fixed corporate fines for the most serious offences to EUR 40 million.

The practical effect is that a late Article 8 report is no longer just a supervisory finding. An intentional failure by an individual is now a criminal case. The Bundesbank’s foreign-trade examiners can review your sanctions processes on site under § 23(2) AWG.

7. Three worked scenarios

Scenario one — an EMI that is not on the circular list. A German e-money institution’s daily screen matches a customer to a person added to Annex I of Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 that morning. No circular arrives, because the institution is not a credit institution. Rule: Art. 2 (freeze from entry into force) and Art. 8 (report within two weeks of acquiring the information). What compliance does: freezes the e-money account the same day and values it at that date. Within the two weeks it e-mails the SZ FiSankt with the holder’s identity, the balance at freezing and at reporting, and the asset type. Outcome: the report is on time. The file shows the institution did not rely on a circular it was never going to receive.

Scenario two — a 55% shareholder is listed. A corporate customer that is not itself listed is 55% owned by a newly listed individual. Rule: the EM System presumption as applied in Bundesbank FAQ B.4a. What the analyst does: treats the company’s balance as frozen, reports it to the SZ FiSankt and tells the customer it may rebut the presumption. It also asks for documents on governance and on how decisions are actually made. Outcome: if the customer shows that the listed shareholder cannot direct its funds, compliance documents the rebuttal and asks the Bundesbank before it releases anything. Until then the account stays frozen.

Scenario three — a circular, and nothing to report. A payment firm that also holds a banking licence receives an SZ FiSankt circular after an EU listing. Its screening finds no match. Rule: the circular procedure described in the Merkblatt. What compliance does: sends a Fehlanzeige within the week. It records the screening run, the list version and who signed off. Outcome: the nil return closes the query. The evidence pack is ready if the SZ AW examiners ask how it was produced.

8. FAQ

9. What to do, today

• Write down the authority for each kind of report: Bundesbank for funds, BAFA for economic resources, the FIU for suspicious transaction reports. Put the SZ FiSankt address in your sanctions procedure.
• If you are a ZAG institution, do not rely on circulars. Start the Article 8 two-week clock from your own screening hit.
• Record a valuation at the date of freezing for every frozen balance, so a report months later can show both dates.
• Apply the 50% control presumption to unlisted corporate customers, add holdings of several listed persons together, and keep a record of every rebuttal you accept.
• Keep an evidence file for each Fehlanzeige: screening run, list version and sign-off.
• Update your training and escalation rules: since February 2026, under § 18(5a) No. 2 AWG, a late report can expose individual staff to criminal liability.

Related: EU asset freeze reporting — the Article 8 duty · Transparenzregister — Germany · BaFin MVP portal · Registre national des gels (France) · Asset freezes in Luxembourg — loi du 19 décembre 2020