Once a transfer has been made, it cannot be easily canceled. What avenues there are after fraud - from a callback to the recipient bank to claims against the account holder.
The moment when it becomes clear that a transfer has been made to fraudsters is difficult for those affected to bear. The first question is almost always: Can the money be recovered? Unlike a direct debit, with transfers there is no right to simply return the payment.
The situation is therefore not hopeless in every case. There are several starting points, although their success depends heavily on the passage of time and the circumstances. This article gives an overview.
The transfer recall: act quickly, stay realistic
In principle, a transfer order cannot be revoked once it has been received by the bank. However, the bank can try to recall the payment. If the amount has not yet been forwarded, execution may still be possible. If it has already been credited to the recipient's account, the bank sends a callback request to the recipient bank. This is usually only allowed to return the amount with the consent of the account holder - in the event of fraud, this consent is, as expected, not given.
Nevertheless, the recall makes sense: it documents the early reaction and informs the receiving bank of the suspected fraud. This can result in the bank checking the account and temporarily not paying out any remaining balance.
Authorized or unauthorized – the central decision
For claims against your own bank, it depends on whether the payment was authorized. If third parties initiated the transfer without the account holder's consent, for example with intercepted access data, the bank must generally reimburse the amount in accordance with Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB). However, you can counter this with a claim for damages according to § 675v BGB if the customer has acted with gross negligence.
The situation is different if those affected initiated the transfer themselves because they were deceived about the purpose or the recipient - for example in the case of a fake invoice or a supposed financial investment. Such a payment is generally considered authorized. As a rule, there is no claim for reimbursement under Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB); the deception doesn't change that. In these cases, claims against the bank can only be considered under special circumstances, such as a breach of warning obligations in exceptional situations.
What role the recipient bank plays
The injured party has no contract with the recipient bank. In principle, it is only obliged to its own customer and, due to banking secrecy and data protection, does not usually provide any information about the account holder. Liability of the receiving bank towards injured parties is only discussed in very limited exceptional cases and cannot be generalized.
The receiving bank is particularly important in practical terms as long as there is still money in the account. Investigating authorities can have credit secured under certain conditions. A quick criminal complaint with complete transfer details is therefore more than a formality.
Claims against the owner of the recipient account
Regardless of the bank, there may be claims against the person whose account the money was received. To be considered:
- a claim for unjust enrichment according to Section 812 of the German Civil Code (BGB) because the account holder obtained the amount without a legal reason,
- Compensation for damages according to Section 823 Paragraph 2 BGB in conjunction with Section 263 StGB if the account holder himself was involved in the fraud,
- Compensation for damages due to intentional immoral damage in accordance with Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB).
Often the recipient account does not belong to the actual perpetrators, but to so-called financial agents who, sometimes deceived, have made their account available for the forwarding of funds. There may also be claims against them. Whether the account holder can claim to have already forwarded the money depends, among other things, on what he knew or should have realized.
The practical hurdles should not be underestimated: the name and address of the account holder must first be determined, often by looking at the investigation file. If the account is located abroad or the account holder has no assets, it is often difficult to enforce a claim despite a good legal situation.
Conclusion
The law does not provide for a simple “recovery” of a transfer. What is possible is a quick callback, a claim for reimbursement against your own bank in the case of unauthorized payments and also claims against the owner of the recipient account. Which of these options are available in individual cases and make economic sense depends on the process, the time factor and the person of the recipient. This requires an honest assessment: the money cannot be recovered in every case.
Frequently asked questions
No. Once the order has been received, revocation is generally no longer possible. The bank can only recall the payment; Once credited, the return is usually subject to the recipient's consent.
A self-approved transfer is generally considered authorized, even if it is based on deception. As a rule, there is no claim for reimbursement under Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB). Claims against the account holder and – in exceptional cases – against the banks involved remain to be examined.
The receiving bank usually does not provide this information. The identity often emerges from the investigation process; Victims can request access to files through a lawyer.
