Report suspected money laundering: Steps to the FIU according to Section 43 of the GwG

§ 43 GwG obliges those obliged under § 2 GwG to report facts that suggest that an asset comes from a predicate offense of money laundering or is related to terrorist financing. The report is made electronically via the goAML reporting portal of the Central Office for Financial Transaction Investigations (FIU). Deadline: immediately. The deadline expires as soon as we become aware of it.

Anyone who has not standardised the process risks missing deadlines, fines according to Section 56 GwG of up to 5 million euros and, in extreme cases, personal criminal liability according to Section 261 StGB. This guide shows ten clearly defined steps from internal notification to FIU confirmation, including enforcement ban, tipping-off ban and retention.

Section 43 paragraph 1 GwG requires reporting if there are facts that suggest that an asset comes from a predicate offense of money laundering (number 1), is related to terrorist financing (number 2) or the contractual partner violates its obligation to disclose according to section 10 paragraph 1 GwG (number 3).

The standard "facts that suggest this" is low-threshold. Specific suspicion is not necessary; a probability below the weight of evidence is sufficient. The FIU then checks whether there is an initial operational suspicion for criminal prosecution; This assessment is not the responsibility of the obligated party.

Typical triggers: unusual cash flows, denominations just below reporting limits (smurfing), brokerage without economic sense, sudden change in the transaction pattern, foreign references to high-risk countries according to the Annex to Delegated Regulation (EU) 2016/1675, PEP receipt without a plausible source of funds, missing or contradictory information on the beneficial owner.

The obligated party is not allowed to carry out the assessment defer to “gather more information.” If there is a trigger, the report must be submitted immediately. Additional information can be submitted later (follow-up message).

CIVAC maps typical triggers in the workspace as a trigger list with threshold values ​​and escalation paths. The Money Laundering Officer thus receives a verifiable basis for deciding whether a transaction is subject to reporting.

Step 1: Record observation. The employee documents the process with date, time, people involved, amount, product and specific trigger. A mere verbal report to the superior is not enough. An internal reporting form with a time stamp is common.

Step 2: Initial check by the superior or the compliance function. It is checked whether the trigger corresponds to a defined trigger, whether there is already a previous report regarding the same business relationship and whether a follow-up report is indicated instead of a new creation.

Step 3: Escalation to the money laundering officer. The escalation takes place immediately and without further evaluation by the line. Deadline begins as soon as we become aware of it. From this point on, the money laundering officer is the owner of the process and alone decides on the report.

Important: The tipping-off ban according to Section 47 GwG applies from step 1 onwards. The employee may not inform the contractual partner or third parties that a process is being checked. Violations are punishable under Section 53 of the GwG. Internal communication runs exclusively via the specified escalation path.

In the CIVAC Workspace, the escalation path is stored as a workflow with a time stamp, four-eye approval and blocking notice on the affected business relationship. The appointment certificate, signed, filed, verifiable, and the reporting chain documented in parallel. The Compliance Officer.

Step 4: Assessment of the facts by the money laundering officer. The internal files, the KYC documents, the transparency register, previous anomalies, the customer's risk assessment and the economic background of the transaction are checked. The assessment is documented in writing.

Step 5: Decision on the report. The benchmark is Section 43 Paragraph 1 GwG. If in doubt, report it to the money laundering officer. The FIU then assesses whether there is an initial operational suspicion. Failure to report in cases of doubt is relevant to liability.

Step 6: Preparation of the report in the goAML portal. The money laundering officer logs in with his registered access data. Mandatory fields are: obligated party, reason according to § 43 GwG, parties involved (contractual partner, beneficial owner, other persons), transactions, accounts, assets, statement of facts.

The statement of facts follows the structure "What - When - Who - Why suspicious". Specific references to predicate offenses (e.g. tax evasion, fraud, breach of trust) increase the ability for the FIU to evaluate. Speculation is avoided, facts are referenced.

There are 490 ready-to-use audit templates available in the CIVAC Workspace, including the factual structure for goAML, a checklist of mandatory fields and a template for internal assessment. The money laundering officer works in a guided workflow and only fills in the case-specific content.

Step 7: Submission of the report via goAML. After checking and approval, the report is transmitted electronically. The system assigns a report reference that must be stored in the internal file. A report sent by post is not permitted, except in justified emergencies in accordance with Section 45 Paragraph 3 of the GwG.

The confirmation of receipt from the FIU is part of the file and is output by the system as a PDF. Deadline: the report must be submitted immediately after the trigger. In practice, 24 hours is common as an internal SLA, in complex cases up to 72 hours.

Step 8: Prohibition of enforcement according to Section 46 GwG. From the date of submission of the report, the transaction associated with the report may not be carried out for three working days unless the FIU or the public prosecutor's office expressly permits its implementation or the FIU shortens the deadline.

Exception: Failure to carry it out would complicate the investigation or inform the contractual partner of the report. In this case, the transaction must be carried out and the FIU must be informed immediately afterwards (Section 46 Paragraph 2 GwG).

In the CIVAC Workspace, the report automatically triggers the blocking notice on the affected business relationship and the 72-hour countdown. The auditor calls, the evidence is ready., including statement of facts, confirmation of receipt and execution documentation.

Step 9: Follow-up messages. If further facts become known after the first report has been submitted, such as further transactions, new participants or new foreign references, a follow-up report must be submitted with reference to the original report reference. The FIU bundles related issues.

Even after requests for information from the FIU or the law enforcement authorities, a timely and complete response is mandatory (§ 30 ff. GwG). Verzögerungen oder unvollständige Auskünfte sind nach § 56 GwG bußgeldbewehrt und können den Vorwurf der Strafvereitelung begründen.

Schritt 10: Aufbewahrung. The suspicious transaction report file is kept for at least five years in accordance with Section 8 Paragraph 4 of the GwG. Contents: internal note, initial examination, assessment of the facts, decision, report submitted, confirmation of receipt, enforcement documentation, follow-up reports, information to FIU.

Evaluation: The money laundering officer carries out an annual evaluation of the reports for the management report in accordance with Section 7 Paragraph 5 GwG. Clusters by trigger, product, region and participants provide information for the next risk analysis in accordance with Section 5 GwG.

The suspected case file is stored in the CIVAC Workspace as a container with mandatory fields and automatic versioning. Licence the workspace for your internal representatives, or have our representatives order it. In both cases, the process is audit-proof and in EU data residency.

§ 47 GwG prohibits the obliged entity and its employees from informing the contractual partner or third parties about an upcoming, submitted or pending report. The ban also applies to people who are not involved in the process themselves, such as family members of the contractual partner.

Violations are punishable according to Section 53 of the GwG with a prison sentence of up to two years or a fine. Simply hinting at an audit, postponing a process with a recognizable reason or working towards a "voluntary termination" of the business relationship can constitute the offense.

Exceptions: The information is permissible to the supervisory authority, to the auditor as part of the audit, to the group (group exception according to Section 47 Paragraph 2 GwG) and to the legal advisor within the scope of professional obligations.

In communication with the A neutral language regulation is required for contractual partners in the enforcement ban window. Phrases such as “internal review required” are common without reference to the specific reason. The language regulation is part of the internal procedure.

In the CIVAC Workspace, the language regulation is stored as a text module in the workflow. The employee receives the approved wording in the blocking notice and can use it without improvising. Others run compliance like a filing cabinet. We run it like software.

Error 1: reported too late. The most common reason is escalation delays in the line or a lack of definition as to when a trigger is met. The result: missed deadlines according to Section 43 GwG, fines of up to 100,000 euros in individual cases, more in serious cases.

Mistake 2: reported too broadly. A statement of facts without concrete facts, without amounts, without those involved and without reference to the specific trigger cannot be evaluated by the FIU and can justify the accusation of an incomplete report.

Error 3: Tipping-off due to careless communication. The contractual partner is informed about internal processes, be it by email, telephone or through a recognizable account blocking. Punishable according to Section 53 of the GwG.

Error 4: Enforcement ban ignored. The transaction is released despite the report being submitted, without an exception in accordance with Section 46 Paragraph 2 of the GwG being documented. Consequence: fine and reputational damage in the supervisory audit.

Error 5: File incomplete. The suspected case file contains the report, but not the assessment of the facts, the confirmation of receipt or the enforcement documentation. This is regularly a finding in the audit report. CIVAC is a compliance platform and officer-as-a-service. Licence the workspace for your internal representatives, or have our representatives order it. Audit-proof, documented, § 43 GwG-proof.

Section 6 paragraph 2 number 6 GwG requires employees to be regularly informed about money laundering and terrorist financing. At least annually, in risk-exposed areas every six months. The training content includes the typical triggers, the internal reporting procedure, the tipping-off ban and the consequences of a breach of duty.

The training is effective if it uses concrete case studies from your own business area. An abstract training course on “money laundering in general” misses the mark. Anonymized real cases, combined with quiz elements, show the highest effectiveness in the audit.

Mandatory content of the training certificate: participants with function, date, duration, content, trainer, knowledge test, signature. Retention period at least five years. When there is a change in personnel, new employees must be trained before starting work; there is no "grace period".

The training can take place as face-to-face training, as computer-supported learning or as a mix. BaFin and the state authorities accept electronic training if the learning success can be verified and the content is up-to-date.

Training modules for money laundering officers, line managers and supervisors are stored in the CIVAC Workspace. The training matrix is ​​linked to the personnel base and triggers the next training automatically. Frequently detailed questions are documented in the CIVAC FAQ.

If your reporting process today is only in a Word document in SharePoint and the next superior decides the trigger in individual cases, the procedure is not auditable. Start with a status check: defined triggers, documented escalation path, suspected case file with mandatory fields, annual training.

CIVAC delivers the reporting process in 2 working days as a guided workflow, including trigger list, fact structure, enforcement ban countdown and storage. Im Modell Workspace lizenzieren Sie die Vorlagen und führen den Prozess intern aus. In the Officer-as-a-Service model, CIVAC provides the appointed money laundering officer.

Both models use the same pool of 490 audit templates, the same EU data residency and the same reporting path to management. You decide based on capacity, not platform change. A change is possible in the current year without data migration.

Others run compliance like a filing cabinet. We run it like software. Instead of distributed Word documents, email threads and Excel lists, you receive a versioned file with a time stamp, four-eye approval and audit export that meets BaFin requirements.

Turn reading into a mandate. Write to info@civac.de or use the contact form on civac.de. We check your reporting process, suggest the appropriate model and provide the trigger list and suspected case file within 2 working days.