Germany

German law distinguishes between criminal offences and administrative offences. Criminal offences can be punished with criminal fines or imprisonment. Administrative offences can be punished with administrative fines.

Core white-collar criminal offences such as bribery, corruption, fraud and money laundering are included in the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch; StGB). More specific criminal offences relevant for companies can be found in specialised areas of the law, for example tax, foreign trade, environmental, banking or capital markets law. Criminal investigations are conducted by one of over 100 public prosecutor’s offices and supported by police, tax or customs investigators. The criminal investigation and court proceedings are governed by the German Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung; StPO).

The vast majority of administrative offences are regulated in special areas of national law, often in conjunction with EU regulations. Only very few administrative offences are found in the Act on Administrative Offences (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz; OWiG), which mainly contains procedural laws as well as important regulations regarding corporate liability for criminal or administrative offences committed by managers or employees. Investigations into administrative offences are conducted by the competent regulatory authority and, if there is a connection to a criminal offence, by the prosecutor’s office. These authorities are also competent to impose administrative fines. Only if the person concerned appeals the fine will a court be involved and decide on the appeal. The competent court is a local criminal court.

The EU is increasingly harmonising the criminal law landscape across the EU Member States; for example, through its recurring anti-money laundering legislation (most recently Regulation (EU) 2024/1624). While EU directives need to be transposed into German law, EU regulations are directly applicable in all Member States.

The EU has also established the dedicated European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), which commenced its work on 1 June 2021, aiming to centralise cross-border prosecutions of crimes and providing the national delegated prosecutors the power to require execution of investigative measures in other Member States. 24 of the 27 Member States participate in the EPPO. EPPO has jurisdiction over criminal offences affecting the financial interests of the European Union, including fraud, VAT fraud with damages above EUR 10 million, money laundering and corruption. For foreign companies in particular, the establishment of the EPPO increased the enforcement risk for cross-border transactions with an EU nexus.

Outside the EU, Germany ratified several international conventions governing the fight against white-collar crime, including the UN Convention against Corruption, the UN Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, the Council of Europe Convention on Laundering, Search, Seizure and Confiscation of the Proceeds from Crime and on the Financing of Terrorism, the Council of Europe Convention on Cybercrime and the Council of Europe Convention on Mutual Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters. These conventions are not directly applicable in Germany but are transposed into national laws, including by means of interpretation of existing provisions.

Under German law, only individuals can commit criminal offences. This means companies cannot be defendants in criminal proceedings but only the managers or employees personally responsible for the relevant misconduct. Despite this legal principle, however, and beyond the possible confiscation of proceeds of criminal or administrative offences, companies face significant enforcement risks through the possible imposition of corporate fines. Such fines can be levied when a person holding a so-called managerial position commits a criminal or administrative offence as a result of which duties of the company have been violated, or where the company has been enriched or was intended to be enriched. Managerial positions include executives, directors and department heads with any personnel, budget or departmental responsibility, or authority to represent the company. Corporate fines apply equally to foreign companies operating in Germany, though international enforcement may present practical challenges.

In case of criminal or administrative violations by employees not holding a managerial position, prosecutors frequently invoke a breach of supervisory duty by management, which in itself is an administrative offence and thus a potential trigger for a corporate fine. This practically always allows prosecutors to also investigate and prosecute the companies involved in white-collar matters.

The territorial scope of white-collar criminal laws is governed by the general rules on applicability of German criminal law set out in the StGB. As a basic rule, German criminal law applies if the responsible individual acted or failed to act in Germany. This territorial concept is broad and does not require that Germany is the focus of the relevant offence or the main place of action. Rather, even a remote connection such as a relevant board meeting in Germany or the use of IT infrastructure based in Germany can be sufficient. German criminal law also applies to offences committed abroad if the defendant is a German national and the act is a criminal offence at the place of its commission or if that place is not subject to any criminal law jurisdiction. Under these circumstances, German criminal law also applies to offences committed by a foreign national against a German national. For some white-collar offences — for example, corruption of foreign officials, violations of trade or business secrets or subsidy fraud — the law provides for an extended international scope.

Jurisdiction over the imposition of a corporate fine against a domestic or foreign company follows from the jurisdiction over the underlying criminal or administrative offence by the responsible individual. According to some views, however, criminal offences committed outside Germany can be the basis for a breach of supervisory duty by the management of the German parent company, even if German criminal law is not applicable. Generally, applicability of German white-collar criminal law is a case-by-case assessment, and it is advisable for companies to seek legal advice in case of an apparent German nexus.

The principal white-collar crime offences include, for example:

• Bribery of public officials. Pursuant to section 333 StGB (granting benefits), whoever offers, promises or grants a public official a benefit in return for the discharge of a duty incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine. The benefit does not necessarily have to be highly priced or valuable. The public official accepting the benefit incurs the same penalty.
  Pursuant to section 334 StGB (offering bribes), whoever offers, promises or grants a public official a benefit in return for the fact that they have performed or would in future perform an official act, and thereby breached or would breach their official duties, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years. The public official accepting the bribe incurs the same penalty.
  Generally, the notion of who is a public official is rather broad. It can also include persons who are entrusted by or on behalf of a public authority or other body with the performance of public administration duties; for example, managing directors of a state-owned bank.
• Commercial bribery. Pursuant to section 299 StGB (taking and giving bribes in commercial practice), whoever, in commercial practice in their capacity as an employee or agent of a business, demands or accepts a benefit for themselves or a third party in return for giving an unfair preference to another in the competitive purchase of goods or services in Germany or abroad, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or a fine. The same applies to whoever, in commercial practice in their capacity as an employee or agent of a business, demands or accepts a benefit for themselves or a third party without the permission of the business in return for performing or refraining from performing an act in the competitive purchase of goods or services, thereby breaching the duty incumbent on them towards the business.
• Fraud. Pursuant to section 263 StGB, whoever, with the intention of obtaining an unlawful economic benefit, damages the assets of another by causing or maintaining a misconception, because of which the deceived person makes a disposition, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine.
• Criminal breach of fiduciary duty. Pursuant to section 266 StGB, whoever intentionally breaches their duty to safeguard fiduciary obligations of another and thereby damages this person’s assets, incurs a penalty of imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or a fine. The scope of section 266 StGB is regularly the subject of high court rulings. In practice, there is a tendency to use criminal breach of fiduciary duty as a catch-all offence to combat professional misconduct.

In addition to the aforementioned core provisions, there are numerous further criminal offences in the StGB and in special areas of law that are relevant in white-collar practice.

Regarding corporate fines, for an underlying criminal offence, the current statutory maximum fine is EUR 10 million for intentional violations and EUR 5 million for negligent violations. This is also the case for violations of supervisory duty where the underlying offence is a crime. However, the maximum fines for administrative offences in certain areas of regulation — for example, antitrust, capital markets, data protection and anti-money laundering — already amount to a certain percentage of the company’s annual turnover. Notably, for larger companies, this leads to the paradoxical consequence that administrative offences can result in higher corporate fines than related criminal offences. Proceeds from an underlying offence can also be confiscated beyond any statutory maximum fine. The confiscated amount will be included in the total fine. This has resulted in corporate fines reaching hundreds of millions of euros, despite the statutory maximum for these offences being EUR 1 million.

Principal white-collar crime offences in relation to foreign conduct include, for example:

• Bribery of international public officials. All corruption offences also apply with regard to EU officials, i.e. officials working for the EU — not officials of other Member States. The corruption offences of granting and giving bribes (sections 332 and 334 StGB) have an international scope. They also apply to foreign public officials, irrespective of the laws of the place where the offence was committed. This is not the case, however, for the offence of granting and accepting benefits (sections 331 and 333 StGB).
• Money laundering. Section 261 StGB, which is punishable by imprisonment for a term of between three months and five years, has been considerably expanded by recent legislative amendments. For an act to constitute money laundering, in principle, three elements must exist: first, assets are the proceeds of a predicate offence, but, unlike before the amendments to the law, there is no limitation to a catalogue of specific predicate offences; second, generally speaking, these proceeds were intentionally disguised by the offender; and third, the offender was aware or recklessly unaware that the assets are the proceeds of an unlawful act. In commercial transactions, aiding and abetting money laundering by handling assets that might have originated from criminal sources, including from offences committed abroad, poses a major compliance risk.
• Trade sanctions and export control violations. As a general rule, according to sections 18 and 19 of the Foreign Trade and Payments Act (Aussenwirtschaftsgesetz; AWG), intentional violations of export control restrictions are punishable as criminal offences, while negligent violations are administrative offences. For example, pursuant to section 18 AWG, whoever intentionally violates a licensing requirement for the export, import, transit, transfer, sale, acquisition, provision, delivery, passing on, service or investment of a directly applicable act of the European Union which serves to implement an economic sanction in the field of Common Foreign and Security Policy, incurs a prison sentence from three months up to five years.

Around 115 local public prosecutor’s offices at state level are responsible for investigating and prosecuting criminal offences, including white-collar crimes. They also determine whether to file an indictment. Some states have established specialised public prosecutor’s offices dedicated to handling major white-collar offences across a broader geographical region. With regard to criminal offences against the EU’s financial interests, jurisdiction lies with EPPO.

The national police play a supporting role in investigations and are required to follow the directives of the public prosecutor’s office. In tax and customs cases, tax or customs investigators take this role. OLAF, EUROPOL and EUROJUST help coordinate between EU Member States’ prosecuting authorities.

There is no authority competent for prosecuting white-collar criminal offences at the German federal level. The Federal Public Prosecutor General, serving as the federal government’s sole prosecutor, investigates exclusively offences related to national security.

Administrative offences are usually investigated and prosecuted by the competent administrative agencies. BaFin, for example, is the competent agency for many administrative offences under capital market law. Regarding antitrust law, the German Federal Cartel Office prosecutes administrative offences. Depending on the individual offence, local prosecutor’s offices can also be competent for prosecuting administrative offences.

With rare exceptions, for example in tax or antitrust law, there are no statutory rules or official guidelines on the process of seeking leniency by self-reporting suspected criminal conduct. Proactively approaching a competent public prosecutor’s office regarding an internal suspicion is, however, a common step that requires a case-by-case balancing of the potential benefits with the risks involved with voluntary self-reporting.

Beyond the benefit of a reduction of a corporate fine, self-reporting reduces the risk of coercive measures by the prosecuting agency, such as dawn raids and associated reputational damage, and greater control over the course of the official investigation, including the selection of a competent prosecutor's office and presenting any initial findings. This may lead to no official investigation being opened or to proceedings being terminated due to cooperative conduct.

On the other hand, self-reporting is not reversible, meaning the process is no longer in control of the company and may lead to an official investigation that would otherwise not have been initiated. The prosecutor’s file may become accessible to third parties or courts, and the voluntary production of documents may result in waiving legal privilege. Unlike individuals, companies cannot settle proceedings through payment to the state or charity, meaning that corporate fines remain a distinct outcome.

If criminal proceedings reach the stage of a public criminal trial, the StPO provides for a formal process centred on a judicial proposal on the content of a settlement. The proposal is made by court resolution at the public hearing. The settlement is reached if the defendant and the public prosecutor agree to the court’s proposal. The defendant and the public prosecutor’s office cannot force a court settlement but can only suggest it.

In Germany, there is no unified regulatory framework governing internal investigations. Consequently, investigators must determine the legal framework on a case-by-case basis, drawing on a wide variety of legal areas, including criminal law, criminal procedure law, data protection law, labour law, capital markets law, civil law, civil procedure law, regulatory law, corporate law, and potentially foreign law. Against this background, investigators regularly face statutory conflicts which must be determined on a case-by-case basis with no universal solution at hand, particularly regarding the tension between corporate and individual interests.

Regarding the governance of internal investigation, key aspects include:

• Determine if there is a legal duty to investigate and ensure clear documentation of decisions regarding the investigation and delegation of responsibilities.
• Where both a management board and a supervisory board have investigation duties, clearly regulate responsibilities and reporting to create synergies.
• Avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest on all hierarchy levels, using measures such as integrity reviews.
• Prevent the investigation from becoming self-directed, especially when conducted by external parties, through forming a steering committee, regular status reviews and adherence to the pre-defined investigation strategy.

When documenting investigation results, including interviews, it should be considered that in Germany there is no comprehensive legal privilege for internal investigations even when external lawyers are involved; legal privilege only applies to companies that are accused in imminent or ongoing official investigation proceedings. It does not apply in proceedings against others, including the company’s management.

In Germany, whistleblower protection is primarily governed by the German Whistleblower Protection Act (Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz; HinSchG), which entered into force on 2 July 2023. Under the law, whistleblower protection applies if individuals report a reasonable suspicion concerning violations in an occupational context concerning criminal offences, certain administrative offences, or violations of EU or national law, including areas such as environmental protection or financial misconduct.

The key protections afforded to whistleblowers under the HinSchG are protection from retaliation, such as dismissal or discrimination, exclusion of liability when disclosures are made in good faith and confidentiality of the whistleblower’s identity.

Legal entities in both the private and public sectors with at least 50 employees must establish internal reporting channels that allow confidential reporting. Employers must also ensure proper follow-up of disclosures, especially by investigating allegations promptly and confidentially. In addition, competent external reporting offices are established at the Federal Office of Justice.

Violations of the HinSchG can result in significant fines for companies of up to EUR 500,000 per violation.

When a criminal offence with corporate involvement is suspected, the public prosecutor’s office is obligated to open an investigation against the responsible individual. By contrast, authorities have discretion regarding whether to pursue administrative fine proceedings against the corporate entity itself. That said, prosecutor’s offices based in larger cities and those specialised in corporate crime frequently choose to bring proceedings against the implicated companies as well.

For administrative offences, prosecuting authorities such as BaFin increasingly impose fines on companies rather than solely prosecuting individuals. For criminal offences, prosecutors still primarily focus on individuals, though in larger cases fines are often imposed on companies in parallel.

Current overall enforcement priorities include EU sanctions violations, COVID-19 state aid fraud, corruption and money laundering, capital markets violations, “cum/ex” tax matters and vehicle emissions issues.

Historically, white-collar crime enforcement has lagged behind other areas of criminal law. Over the last two decades, however, authorities have put an increased focus on white-collar matters and significantly ramped up their capabilities, resources, and international cooperation. Companies now face a far more robust enforcement environment. At the same time, for example, prosecutor’s offices which are not specialised in white-collar crime still work with limited and technically non-advanced resources, creating delays in case preparation and evidence management. For companies affected by complex investigations, this means proceedings often take a significant amount of time, sometimes spanning years before resolution. This prolonged uncertainty may strain corporate resources, disrupt business operations, and create reputational risks that persist throughout the extended investigative process.

Before the German federal election in 2021, there was much public debate about the former government’s draft Corporate Sanctions Act, which aimed to introduce a new framework for prosecuting and sanctioning companies. The bill ultimately did not pass the federal parliament (Bundestag). The current government has also announced that it wants to reform the laws on corporate sanctions; however, it plans to make only targeted adjustments to the existing legal framework.

In January 2026, the Bundestag passed significant tightening of sanctions criminal law, implementing EU Directive 2024/1226 on the definition of criminal offences and penalties for the violation of EU restrictive measures in foreign trade law. This includes criminalising previously administrative offences such as dual-use goods violations and increasing corporate fines up to EUR 40 million.

In the area of environmental law, the EU adopted Directive (EU) 2024/1203 on the protection of the environment through criminal law, which includes new (and expands existing) environmental offences. The directive must be implemented into German national law by May 2026. A draft bill has already been published. Planned changes include an expansion of criminal liability and a significant increase of corporate fines up to EUR 40 million.

Regarding bribery and corruption, the EU proposed a directive on combating corruption by criminal law. The proposal aims to harmonise corruption offences, sanctions and corporate liability across the EU. If adopted, the directive may lead to adjustments of existing German criminal provisions and increased compliance expectations for companies. The EU legislative process is ongoing.