With the publication of the updated guidance from BaFin and FIU at the end of November 2025, the requirements for the immediacy and completeness of suspicious activity reports pursuant to the Money Laundering Act (GwG) are once again coming into focus. For legal departments, money laundering officers and financial service providers, the document provides clear and practical guidance on how to act in suspicious cases – and which mistakes should be avoided at all costs.
Table of Contents
Particularly relevant in practice: the guidance contains a large number of specific case studies from different sectors, which enable a better classification of typical reporting situations. Another significant change concerns the specification of the immediacy of the suspicious activity report: BaFin (Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) and FIU (Financial Intelligence Unit) require that, in the event of facts indicating the circumstances referred to in Section 43 (1) of the GwG and enabling a report of suspicion that is comprehensible to the FIU and understandable in itself, the report must generally be made on the same day, or at the latest on the next working day. This establishes a binding time frame – a circumstance that is of central importance for the daily practice of all obligated parties.
1. Background: The importance of suspicious activity reports pursuant to Section 43 of the GwG
Suspicious activity reports are one of the key instruments in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing. According to Section 43 (1) of the GwG, all obligated parties under the GwG are required to report the facts immediately and in full to the FIU if there are objective indications based on actual facts, regardless of the transaction amount or type of asset. Violations of the reporting obligation are punishable by fines and can have significant regulatory consequences. Of particular significance for obligated companies is the regular publication of these violations by BaFin on its website.
2. What does ‘immediately’ mean? – New clarifications from BaFin
The term “immediately” is defined in German law as ‘without culpable delay’ (Section 121 (1) of the BGB). The guidance emphasises that there are no rigid deadlines – each case must always be considered individually. The decisive factor is that the obligated party acts immediately after becoming aware of all reportable facts and does not wait. If all the necessary information is already available, the report must be submitted on the same day or, at the latest, on the next working day (Saturday does not count as a working day).
3. Completeness of the report: What must it contain?
A suspicious activity report is considered complete if it contains all objectively available facts that indicate suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing. This includes all available information on the persons, organisations, accounts and transactions involved. The report must provide the FIU with a clear and comprehensible picture. It is not sufficient to simply provide important information in appendices – the relevant data must be entered directly in the report form or in the XML schema (goAML).
However, the reporting obligation is only triggered if, after considering the overall circumstances of the case, there are facts that indicate the existence of one of the circumstances specified in Section 43 (1) sentence 1 of the GwG. If this is not sufficient, further clarification of the facts is required for the assessment, which must also be carried out without delay. The scope of action of the obligated parties is limited to the collection and investigation of information that has arisen in the direct environment of the business relationship and that is available on the basis of this business relationship.
The law does not expressly require that all details be ‘investigated’. Obligated parties and their AML-Officers are not required to carry out investigative measures or conduct interviews with customers in cases of suspicion. This is the sole responsibility of the supervisory and law enforcement authorities, as is the assessment of the credibility of the person concerned and the plausibility of their statements (OLG Frankfurt decision of 10 April 2018 – 2 Ss-Owi 1059/17). Questioning the persons concerned about the origin/use of funds is not required, particularly in view of the risk of concealment (cf. Section 47 (1) of the GwG), but may be useful in assessing whether a reportable situation exists at all.
4. Quality of the suspicious activity report: How should it be reported?
Another focus of the new guidance is the quality of the content of the suspicious activity report. The report must not only be timely, but also sufficiently substantiated and comprehensible to the FIU in terms of content so that the FIU can carry out its analysis after receiving the report – mere assertions, vague assumptions or reports with missing information and without a verifiable factual basis are not sufficient for this purpose. So-called ‘defensive reporting’ (see FATF (2022), Anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing measures – Germany, Fourth Round Mutual Evaluation Report, FATF, Paris, p. 15), i.e. suspicious activity reports without positive knowledge and substantiated facts, should be avoided. Only substantial and well-documented suspicious activity reports contribute effectively to the prevention of money laundering, while reports made ‘into the blue’ tie up resources and can even impair prevention work.
5. Typical sources of error and how to avoid them
a) Waiting for further information:
Suspicious activity reports are often submitted too late because detailed clarifications are still awaited. However, the threshold for reporting is already reached when there are objectively recognisable indications.
b) Incomplete reports:
Anyone who omits information such as beneficial owners, third parties involved or relevant transaction details risks delays in analysis and a fine.
c) Overcautious (defensive) reporting:
BaFin explicitly warns against defensive (‘precautionary’) reports without factual basis. Objective evidence is always required; mere speculation or system-generated alerts without further investigation are not sufficient.
6. Practical recommendations for implementation in the company
- Review internal processes:
Ensure that reporting channels within the company are clearly defined and known. - Conduct training:
Train employees regularly on the new requirements and typical sources of error. - Improve documentation:
Record the decision-making processes surrounding the clarification of facts and reporting chronologically. - Strengthen the role of the money laundering officer:
Involve the money laundering officer in audit and reporting processes at an early stage.
7. Conclusion
The new guidance from BaFin and FIU marks an important milestone for money laundering prevention in Germany. By specifying key terms such as ‘immediacy’ and ‘completeness’ and including practical case studies, obligated parties now have greater legal certainty, but also significantly greater responsibility.
In particular, the clarification of the time requirements represents a change from previous administrative practice. Companies and their AML-Officers are therefore required to align their internal processes and workflows with this new urgency. Delays or negligence in implementation can not only lead to heavy fines, but also increasingly bring the persons involved into the focus of supervision.
Typical sources of error – such as waiting for further information or incomplete information – are now also clearly addressed. Those who take the practical examples and recommendations for action in the guidance document as a benchmark can review their own reporting processes in a targeted manner and clearly regulate interfaces.
Overall, the requirements for the quality and speed of suspicious activity reports are increasing. All obligated parties should take this as an opportunity to critically review existing processes, train employees and make technical and organisational adjustments. This is the only way to avoid regulatory risks and make an effective contribution to the fight against money laundering.
