I. Why this article is relevant

The draft bill from the Federal Ministry of Finance for a law to strengthen customs administration and combat financial crime contains far-reaching amendments to the Customs Crime Prevention Act, the Money Laundering Act, and other specialized laws. Subject to the further legislative process and the final text of the legislation, this could result in significant adjustments for companies in the areas of money laundering prevention, transparency register compliance, enforcement of sanctions, and documentation. The proposed expanded powers of investigation, disclosure, and seizure are particularly relevant for management and compliance and money laundering officers. The planned procedure for suspicious assets pursuant to Sections 52a et seq. of the draft Customs Crime Prevention Act (ZollKrimBG-E) increases the importance of verifiable proof of ownership, financing, and the origin of funds. Personal liability issues are separate from this; they depend on breach of duty, fault, damage, and causation in each individual case.

Procedures concerning suspicious assets: Sections 52a et seq. of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E) provide for administrative proceedings for the investigation, securing, and potential confiscation of significant assets of unclear origin. According to Section 52b Paragraph 3 of the Draft Customs Crime Act, an asset is generally considered significant if its value exceeds €100,000 or if it is subject to mandatory registration; unclear origin is determined according to Section 52b Paragraph 4 of the Draft Customs Crime Act. Securing the assets is provided for in Section 52d of the Draft Customs Crime Act, and judicial confiscation proceedings are provided for in Sections 52h–52k of the Draft Customs Crime Act.

• Transparency Register and Participation: The draft tightens the requirements for data quality and participation in the transparency register. It includes provisions for confirming the power of representation (§ 18a GwG-E), for clarifying discrepancy reports (§ 23b GwG-E), and for supplementing the information of beneficial owners with their place of birth (§ 19 para. 1 no. 2 GwG-E).
• Enforcement of sanctions and management responsibility: According to Section 9 of the draft Sanctions Enforcement Act (SanktDG-E), the General Directorate of Customs can appoint a special representative under the statutory conditions. This regulation increases the pressure on management to provide robust documentation of ownership, control, and influence structures, as well as the sanctions control system. However, personal civil or administrative liability does not automatically follow from an official measure, but depends on the individual case.

II. Legislative status and intended timeframes

Legislative status: The present text is a draft bill prepared by the Federal Ministry of Finance, not a government bill. Therefore, changes are possible during inter-ministerial consultation, consultation with associations, a subsequent cabinet decision, and parliamentary debate. Statements regarding a guaranteed majority in the Bundestag, the position of the Bundesrat, or a specific promulgation date would currently be speculative.

The draft is situated within the context of Germany’s FATF follow-up review in 2028 and the European AML reforms. This gives the project high political relevance, but does not guarantee its content, timing, or whether individual regulations will be enacted unchanged.

Timeframe: The draft contains entry-into-force dates stipulated in Article 27 of the draft Act on the Promotion of …

Entry into force and transitional provisions proposed in the draft

The tight timeframe results in an extremely short preparation window for compliance officers. The following deadlines must be strictly observed for implementation:

• Partial entry into force from the following day: Article 27 of the draft Central Bankruptcy Act (ZFG-E) provides for the entry into force of certain provisions on the day after their promulgation. According to the draft, this applies, among other things, to the new administrative offense for failure to register with the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) pursuant to Section 56 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 69a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E). Affected companies should therefore prepare an implementation plan that can be activated at short notice.
• January 1, 2027 – intended standard date: Article 27 of the draft Customs Funding Act (ZFG-E) stipulates that key parts of the project will enter into force on January 1, 2027. According to the draft’s systematic structure, this also includes central amendments to the Money Laundering Act and the Customs Crime Prevention Act. However, this date is subject to the further legislative process.
• Technical requirements for the transparency register: Section 59, paragraph 17 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) stipulates that the register-managing authority must create the technical requirements for the procedure under Section 18a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) by December 31, 2026, at the latest. Section 18a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) concerns the confirmation of the power of representation to the register-managing authority; a general legal obligation to submit overviews of ownership and control structures should not be derived from this.
• July 10, 2027 – Proposed transitional provisions: According to Section 59 Paragraph 16 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E), the place of birth of beneficial owners can be reported retroactively until July 10, 2027. Furthermore, Section 59 Paragraph 6 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) contains transitional provisions regarding the FIU registration of certain obliged entities. Violation of the registration obligation is subject to a fine pursuant to Section 56 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 No. 69a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E). All data, exceptions, and affected parties must be verified against the final version of the law before publication.

III. Obligations for Compliance, C-Level and other stakeholders

The draft bill contains planned obligations to act, cooperate, and tolerate certain actions. Their final scope depends on the final legal text, the respective entry into force, and the specific area of ​​application for the company.

Specifically, the following normative obligations arise from a legal perspective:

1. Obligations in the area of ​​money laundering prevention (AML)

• FIU Registration: According to Section 45 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG-E), obliged entities covered therein must register with the FIU. For the transitional phase, Section 59 Paragraph 6 of the GwG-E must be observed. Intentional or negligent violations are subject to fines pursuant to Section 56 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 69a of the GwG-E. Affected companies should review the scope of application, exceptions, goAML access, internal responsibilities, and representation arrangements.
• Money Laundering Officer and Deputy: Section 7, paragraph 3, sentence 1 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) is intended to explicitly include the appointment of a deputy money laundering officer. The deputy should be formally appointed, professionally qualified, sufficiently authorized, and involved in escalation and absence procedures.
• Covert investigative measures: Section 25n of the German Banking Act (KWG-E) is intended to obligate credit and financial services institutions to support covert investigations under the conditions stipulated therein. For this purpose, institutions require a strictly confidential exemption procedure for KYC, sanctions screening, and transaction monitoring with a clear legal basis, documented authorization, restrictive access rights, and subsequent oversight.

2. Compliance obligations

• Transparency register data and power of representation: Section 19 Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) is intended to record the place of birth as information on the beneficial owner. Section 18a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) regulates the confirmation of the power of representation to the register-managing authority. Companies should review data quality, chains of authorization, and register reporting processes at an early stage.
• Discrepancy procedure: Section 23b of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) aims to further define the review of incoming discrepancy reports and the cooperation of affected legal entities. A centralized process for receipt, deadline monitoring, fact-finding, approval, communication, and documentation reduces the risk of erroneous register data and negative register indications. Potential fines must be reviewed against the final version of the law before publication.
• Reporting obligations under sanctions law: Domestic and foreign nationals are obliged to immediately report to the General Directorate of Customs any funds or economic resources in their possession that could benefit sanctioned persons and to cooperate in the verification of the information (§ 10 para. 1 sentence 1 SanktDG-E).

3. Duties and responsibilities of the C-level (management)

• Special Representative in Sanction Cases: Pursuant to Section 9 of the Draft Sanctions Act (SanktDG-E), the General Directorate of Customs may appoint a special representative under the stipulated conditions. Insofar as tasks or powers are transferred to this representative, the company and its existing management bodies are subject to obligations of tolerance and support; in the case of a complete transfer of tasks, the management bodies‘ powers may be suspended pursuant to Section 9, Paragraph 4, Sentence 1 of the Draft Sanctions Act (SanktDG-E). The specific requirements, the scope of the order, and available legal remedies must be examined in light of the final text of the law.
• Requests for information and documents under the aVES (Administrative Procedure for the Investigation of Criminal Proceedings): The procedure under Sections 52a et seq. of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E) enables the customs administration to investigate significant assets of unclear origin. Seizure is governed by Section 52d of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E). For affected parties and beneficial owners, the duty to cooperate under Section 52f Paragraph 1 of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E) is particularly relevant. The precise scope of official requests for information and documents must be examined based on the final draft version.
• Duty to cooperate and proof of origin: According to Section 52f Paragraph 1 of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E), the person concerned or the beneficial owner is obligated to submit suitable evidence, documents, or other records and to provide relevant information regarding the origin of suspicious assets. This is not a "reversal of the burden of proof" in the strict procedural sense. However, a lack of cooperation can be taken into account when assessing the origin and, if the legal requirements are met, can contribute to judicial confiscation pursuant to Sections 52h–52k of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E).
• Electronic data provision (combating undeclared work): The management must ensure that the customs authorities are granted electronic access to specific company documents and data upon request at the office (§ 5a para. 1 sentence 1 SchwarzArbG-E).

IV. Potential problems in fulfilling the obligations

The implementation of the amended Customs Crime Prevention Act (ZollKrimBG-E) and the Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) poses significant legal and operational implementation risks for companies. From the perspective of anti-money laundering (AML), compliance, and C-level management, the following key problems arise:

1. Money Laundering Prevention (AML Organization)

• Exceptional procedures for covert investigations: Section 25n of the German Banking Act (KWG-E) can create tensions with standardized KYC, sanctions screening, and monitoring processes. What is needed is not uncontrolled IT bypasses, but a narrowly defined exception procedure with documented authorization, restrictive access rights, separate system logic, and independent oversight.
• FIU registration: Implementing Section 45 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2, Section 59 Paragraph 6, and Section 56 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 69a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) could lead to bottlenecks in technical access, role authorizations, representation, and training. Therefore, an early impact analysis is advisable; binding implementation steps should be aligned with the final legal text.

2. Compliance Management

• Negative registration indicators: Insofar as Section 23b of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) provides for negative indicators in the event of unresolved discrepancies, these can lead to inquiries, delays in onboarding, and increased documentation requirements. However, this does not automatically result in account termination; it depends on the individual risk assessment of the respective obliged entity.
• Identification hurdles within corporate groups (§ 18a GwG-E): The obligation to provide formal electronic proof of authorization to represent companies for transparency register entries in the future (e.g. eID) represents a significant procedural hurdle in complex, international chains of authorization.
• Resource commitment: Short-term and far-reaching official requests for information in administrative asset investigations (§ 57 para. 2 ZollKrimBG-E) tie up massive compliance resources.

3. C-Level (organizational autonomy and personal liability)

• Suspension of the autonomy of the customs authority (§ 9 SanktDG-E): If the customs authority detects an inspection by sanctioned persons, it may appoint a special representative whose powers partially or completely supersede those of the management ex lege (§ 9 para. 4 sentence 1 SanktDG-E).
• Potential liability risks for company directors: Seizure under Section 52d of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E) or judicial confiscation under Sections 52h–52k of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E) does not automatically establish personal liability for the management under Section 43 of the Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) or Section 93 of the Stock Corporation Act (AktG). Organizational, supervisory, or documentation deficiencies can only be relevant to liability if a culpable breach of duty causally contributes to damage to the company. Therefore, for significant assets within the meaning of Section 52b Paragraph 3 of the Draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E), comprehensible documentation of origin and financing is of paramount importance.
• Cost risk: According to the draft version of Section 9 Paragraph 6 of the Sanctions Enforcement Act (SanktDG-E), the affected company is required to bear the costs. This can represent a significant financial burden and increases the incentive to reliably document sanctions risks, control relationships, and its own governance.

V. Concrete solutions

To protect against upcoming regulatory tightening, proactive adaptation of internal control systems (ICS) is essential. The draft legislation is situated within the context of European and international developments in AML and sanctions. Since content, responsibilities, deadlines, and penalty provisions may still be amended during the legislative process, "no-regret" measures are particularly advisable, as they strengthen existing compliance organizations regardless of the final wording.

The following “no-regret” measures and solutions are strongly recommended from both a legal and operational perspective:

1. Arrangements for the C-level (management)

• Implementing internal "sanction firewalls": Establishing an effective and robust sanctions prevention system is essential to demonstrate, in cases of suspected wrongdoing, that sanctioned individuals do not exercise control over the company. A documented sanctions control system, including screening, ownership and control checks, escalation, and management reporting, can identify risks under Section 9 of the German Sanctions Act (SanktDG-E) at an early stage and provide a transparent overview of the company’s control position to authorities. However, it does not guarantee that official action is ruled out.
• Audit-proof documentation of the source of funds: For significant assets within the meaning of Section 52b Paragraph 3 of the German Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E), ownership, acquisition, financing, payment methods, and beneficial owners should be documented on a risk-based basis. Contracts, invoices, payment receipts, financing documents, corporate documents, and approvals are particularly important. This improves the ability to comply with the obligation to cooperate pursuant to Section 52f Paragraph 1 of the German Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E).

2. Provisions for compliance management

• Auditing and supplementing transparency register data: Companies should review the completeness and consistency of their transparency register information regarding beneficial owners and control structures. If Section 19 Paragraph 1 No. 2 of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) comes into force, the place of birth must be included in the data and quality assurance.
• Preparation of ownership and control structure overviews: Up-to-date overviews of direct and indirect shareholdings, control, and representation relationships facilitate transparency register notifications, KYC (Know Your Customer) checks, sanctions screening, and official inquiries. However, based on the current draft, a general legal obligation to electronically submit such overviews to the transparency register should not be asserted.
• Centralizing discrepancy management: For inquiries pursuant to Section 23b of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG-E), clear processes should exist for receipt, deadline monitoring, fact-finding, approval, communication, and documentation. This will help to avoid incomplete register data and negative register entries as far as possible.

3. Anti-money laundering (AML) measures

• Early FIU registration in the non-financial sector: Potentially subject to the regulations should examine, based on Section 45 Paragraph 1 Sentence 2 and Section 59 Paragraph 6 of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E), whether FIU registration would be required. In particular, the obliged entity status, exemptions, goAML access, responsibilities, and representation must be clarified. Upon its entry into force, Section 56 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 Number 69a of the draft Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) will increase its practical relevance.
• Formal appointment of a deputy: The inclusion of a deputy provided for in Section 7 Paragraph 3 Sentence 1 of the German Money Laundering Act (GwG-E) should be used as an opportunity to examine the actual capacity to represent the AML function: formal appointment, expertise, access rights, resources, contingency planning and escalation capability.

VI. Conclusion

The draft bill for the Customs Finance Justice Act sends a clear signal for stronger powers for the customs administration, more intensive anti-money laundering measures, and higher requirements for transparency register and sanctions compliance. However, the final version, its entry into force, and specific transition periods remain open.

Companies should therefore neither wait indefinitely nor treat unfinalized draft regulations as if they were already established law. Appropriate measures are risk-based "no-regret" approaches: a robust sanctions control system with regard to Section 9 of the draft Sanctions Enforcement Act (SanktDG-E), current ownership and control structures, centrally managed transparency register processes, and readily accessible documentation of the origin of funds and assets for potential requirements under Sections 52a et seq. and Section 52f Paragraph 1 of the draft Customs Crime Act (ZollKrimBG-E).

The aforementioned measures improve the company’s ability to provide information and evidence, reduce organizational and implementation risks, and strengthen the foundation of proper management. They do not preclude regulatory action or personal liability issues under Section 43 of the German Limited Liability Companies Act (GmbHG) or Section 93 of the German Stock Corporation Act (AktG). However, personal liability always requires a case-by-case assessment, particularly regarding breach of duty, fault, damages, and causation.

S+P Editorial Team

VII. List of Sources

Federal Ministry of Finance: Draft bill for a law for greater fairness through the strengthening of the customs administration and the fight against financial crime (Customs Financial Fairness Act – ZFG-E), status as of February 25, 2026, published on March 3, 2026: https://www.bundesfinanzministerium.de/… , accessed on August 27, 2026.

Legal Notice: This article is based on a draft bill. All information regarding standards, areas of application, transitional periods, fines, and entry into force dates must be checked against the most recent official version before publication and against the promulgated law after completion of the legislative process.