Those who invest in a capital investment and are subsequently defrauded usually only expect a financial loss. What many victims don't realize is that the same scam can, within just a few days, lead to a separate investigation against them for money laundering. Not as perpetrators, but still as suspects.
The transition often goes unnoticed. Legally, a new, independent process begins at this moment, one that has nothing to do with the original fraud from which the victims were harmed. For both defense and compliance, the central question thus shifts: no longer whether someone was harmed, but whether they have also committed a crime.
The article explains how victims end up in the role of intermediaries and why the mere flow of payments is already a burden. Fraud victims as involuntary money launderers: The situation from a forensic and legal perspective This article starts one level later: with the escalation under criminal and civil law.
From fraud victim to suspect: the second wave
Investment fraud rarely ends for the perpetrators with the first payment. A second wave often follows, the so-called recovery scam: Victims are offered the chance to recover their lost money for a fee or through a supposed lawyer, government agency, or recovery specialist. This article examines how these providers are structured. Recovery scam after crypto fraud: Providers and structures In some cases, fraud victims are recruited via job advertisements as supposed trust managers or payment processors, often without being aware of the connection to their own loss.
In both scenarios, the outcome is the same: Funds originating from crimes against third parties, such as hacked accounts, fake investment platforms, or fraud perpetrated against other victims, are deposited into the victim's account. The victims then forward the money, often abroad, and receive a small commission. In doing so, they effectively act as money mules, without ever knowing the masterminds behind the actual fraudulent scheme.
Money laundering under Section 261 of the German Criminal Code: All-crime approach and recklessness
Since the reform of the money laundering offense on March 18, 2021, the so-called all-crime approach has been in effect. Previously, money laundering was only punishable if the money originated from a definitively listed catalog of offenses. Since then, any unlawful predicate offense is sufficient, including a single instance of fraud or simple embezzlement.
For victims of fraud who unknowingly acted as money mules, Section 261 Paragraph 6 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) is crucial. According to this section, anyone who merely failed to recognize the suspicious origin of the assets through gross negligence, i.e., through reckless negligence, is also liable to prosecution. Intent is not required. It suffices if the dubious origin should have been obvious under the circumstances, for example, in the case of an unusually high commission for a simple bank transfer. Reckless money laundering is punishable by a fine or imprisonment of up to two years, while intentional money laundering is punishable by imprisonment of up to five years. This subjective element of the offense is precisely the starting point for any defense.
Money Laundering (MLA) suspicion reports and account freezes: how quickly the authorities react
Banks, payment service providers, and other entities obligated under the Money Laundering Act (GwG) must immediately report any suspected money laundering to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) in accordance with Section 43 GwG. No minimum amount is required for reporting. Even unusual account activity, such as irregular deposits of large sums followed by immediate forwarding, often triggers an automatic report.
With the Suspicious activity report The execution block under Section 46 of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG) applies: The transaction in question may not be executed initially. In practice, this often means a de facto account freeze, which lasts until the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) or the public prosecutor's office reacts, or until the statutory period of usually three working days expires. Simultaneously, criminal proceedings are frequently initiated immediately. A police summons, and sometimes a search warrant, often follows shortly thereafter, even before the victims realize they have been drawn into someone else's fraudulent scheme. Within days, the victim becomes a suspect with a frozen account and an ongoing investigation.
Civil liability of the money agent
Besides criminal proceedings, a second, often underestimated consequence looms: civil liability to the actual victims. Anyone who acted as a money mule can be sued for repayment by the individuals whose money flowed through their account, regardless of whether the money was kept or immediately forwarded. Case law recognizes liability even in cases of negligent ignorance of the origin of the funds. The financial damage can therefore far exceed the commission received or the individual's own investment loss.
This means that two proceedings with different rules come into play: a criminal proceeding for money laundering and a civil proceeding for damages. Both end independently of each other. Therefore, a discontinued criminal proceeding does not automatically protect against a civil liability, a fact that should be addressed early in the client consultation.
Discontinuation of proceedings pursuant to Sections 170, 153 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the prerequisites
Not every investigation ends with charges. Particularly in cases where the victim has demonstrably been deceived and there is no evidence of conscious involvement, the case may be dismissed under Section 170 Paragraph 2 of the German Code of Criminal Procedure (StPO) due to insufficient suspicion of a crime, or under Section 153 StPO due to the minor nature of the offense. A prerequisite is generally that the victim's good faith can be plausibly demonstrated. Without such a demonstration, there is a risk that the investigating authorities will infer at least reckless conduct solely from the external circumstances—receipt of money and its prompt forwarding. Therefore, it is crucial for the defense to substantiate the victim's subjective understanding of the situation.
Warning signals and documentation
For consulting practice, it is worth pointing out typical warning signs that allow the situation to be recognized early: commissions solely for using the account, requests for rapid transfer abroad, and contact following an investment fraud that has already occurred, promising a refund.
If an account is frozen or a summons is issued, complete documentation of the sequence of events is crucial: How did the contact originate, what communication took place, which amounts were received and when, and where were they forwarded? This traceability is often decisive later on in determining whether a court or public prosecutor distinguishes between an accomplice and a victim who has been deceived.
Forensic exoneration via the transaction chain
This is where financial forensic analysis comes in. A structured reconstruction of the payment and transaction chain can demonstrate that funds were passed on according to instructions, that the victim retained no economic benefit, and that the true beneficiaries are to be found in an underlying criminal group. The article delves deeper into the evidence supporting this claim. Proving crypto fraud: Blockchain evidence for criminal charges and recovery of funds; The article describes what such an analysis contributes to the mandate. What forensic blockchain analysis can do for lawyers.
For compliance functions, the same methodology provides the basis for distinguishing between situations that are deemed to be incriminating and those that are not; the requirements for a viable proof of origin are addressed in the article. Proof of Origin of Funds for Cryptocurrencies 2026. In the case of mixed stocks, the allocation is also crucial, as is the contribution. Ownership rights and allocation in cases of commingling This represents financial forensics. The relevant findings are presented.Flow- and evidence of the origin of funds as admissible evidence for court proceedings Lawyers, Companies and public authorities. An initial case assessment is free of charge.
Conclusion
The link between investment fraud and money laundering allegations demonstrates the close connection between fraud-specific and money laundering risks. For legal defense as well as compliance assessments, the decisive factor is regularly whether the subjective initial situation can be substantiated. Furthermore, there is civil liability, which can persist even after criminal proceedings have been discontinued. The forensic reconstruction of the payment chain is therefore often the crucial element in distinguishing between perpetrator and victim roles.
FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about the Money Laundering Procedure against Fraud Victims
Funds from criminal offenses against third parties are deposited into the individual's account and forwarded, for example, as part of a money recovery scheme or a purported side job as a payment processor. The resulting legal proceedings are separate and independent of the original fraudulent loss.
Since March 18, 2021, any unlawful predicate offense can constitute money laundering, not just the previously exhaustively listed predicate offenses. This means that a single case of fraud or embezzlement is sufficient.
Yes. It is also a criminal offense to fail to recognize a person's criminal origin through gross negligence. Intent is not required. It is sufficient if the dubious origin should have been obvious under the circumstances.
Very quickly. Obligated entities must report any suspicion under Section 43 of the Money Laundering Act (GwG) to the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) immediately, regardless of the amount. Unusual incoming payments requiring immediate forwarding often trigger an automated notification.
The transaction in question must not be executed initially. In practice, this often leads to a de facto account freeze until the FIU or public prosecutor's office reacts, or until the deadline, usually three working days, expires.
Yes. Money mules can be held liable for repayment by the actual victims, regardless of whether they kept the money or forwarded it. Case law recognizes liability even in cases of negligent ignorance.
No. Criminal and civil proceedings are separate and follow different rules. A discontinuation of criminal proceedings does not automatically eliminate a civil payment obligation.
If there is no evidence of deliberate involvement and good faith can be plausibly demonstrated, the case can be dismissed for lack of sufficient suspicion or because the offense is minor. Without such a demonstration, there is a risk of concluding that the conduct was reckless.
She can prove that payments were made according to instructions, that no economic benefit remained, and that the assets were merely passed through. This provides the basis for making her subjective position plausible to the public prosecutor's office and the court.
Through fund flow and source of funds analyses, OSINT- Research into perpetrator infrastructure and court-admissible reports to support lawyers, companies, and authorities. An initial case assessment is free of charge.
