Money laundering: origins, explanations and investigation

Money laundering is about more than a lot of foreign money

The money laundering provisions in the Criminal Code cover various types of behavior and forms of guilt. For example, it may involve acquiring, possessing, transferring, converting or concealing, in connection with a criminal origin and the required knowledge or culpability. Not every suspicion raises all these variants at the same time. Therefore, before trying to give a general story about your finances, ask what action, object, and period are mentioned. (Criminal Code)

Our editorial analysis is that three questions often incorrectly coincide: why something is striking, why it would be criminal and why you knew or should have suspected it. A large amount of cash may raise the first question without definitively answering the other two. The defense becomes more concrete when it reads the reasoning step by step. What facts have been established, what conclusion does the Public Prosecution Service make and what information can test that conclusion? That is more useful than just saying that cash is not prohibited.

A report is not a conviction

Banks and other reporting institutions have their own obligations regarding unusual transactions. FIU-Netherlands describes money laundering and the underlying criminal origin. The processing of a report is at a different stage than a criminal judgment by the judge. A bank's decision about services also has its own basis. A customer can therefore simultaneously receive questions from a bank and be approached as a suspect without one procedure completely determining the other. (FIU-Netherlands describes money laundering and the underlying criminal origin)

Save correspondence and carefully distinguish who requests what information. A bank request may have a different term and legal status than a suspect interrogation. The idea that the right to remain silent resolves every contractual information request from a bank is too simplistic. The idea that you therefore have to give all information to investigative authorities without advice is also the same. Have concurrent interests assessed. Don't share passwords or access codes in a general overview; provenance research usually requires relevant documents, not unlimited access to your entire digital life.

It is not always necessary to identify one precise crime

Sometimes the Public Prosecution Service can directly link money to a specific crime. In other cases, this direct link is lacking and the criminal origin is deduced from circumstances. That does not automatically make a money laundering case impossible. The judge must reach a responsible conclusion that the required criminal origin has been proven. The lack of an identifiable victim or a specific prior conviction is therefore not a universal defense.

Check which route is actually being followed. Does it concern traceable payments from a specific criminal offense or circumstances that, according to the Public Prosecution Service, do not allow a reasonable legal explanation? The first route may focus on the link between account, payment and crime. In the second, a concrete alternative scenario is given a different role. Don't confuse those routes. A document proving a legal source of income must still correspond to the objects or amounts about which the accusation is made. A general income does not explain every single cash flow without further information.

A statement of origin is not a reversal of the burden of proof

In March 2026, the Supreme Court confirmed the framework for cases without an immediately known source offense. If the circumstances provided justify a sufficient suspicion of money laundering, a concrete, verifiable and not highly improbable explanation for a legal origin may be required. Such a statement may subsequently require further investigation by the Public Prosecution Service. The ultimate question of evidence remains with the Public Prosecution Service and the judge; it is not a general task for the suspect to prove his innocence. (Supreme Court confirmed the framework for cases without an immediately known source offense in March 2026)

In practical terms, this means that precision is more important than an impressive story. State what the source of income was, in what period money was received and what existing data makes verification possible. If a part is missing, explain which part it is and why. The lawyer can assess how and when a statement can be submitted responsibly, partly in the light of the file and your right to remain silent. An unverifiable communication about an unknown generous acquaintance has a different position than a well-defined transaction with existing bank or witness details.

What the 2026 bitcoin case shows

In the said case, an explanation was given about previously purchased bitcoins and subsequent increase in value, with reference to supporting statements. The Supreme Court found the court's negative reasoning insufficiently understandable and remanded the case for relevant parts. That was not a general acquittal for crypto transactions and not a judgment that every reference to price gains is sufficient. The decision underlines that available leads for verification must be seriously assessed.

For a new file, the useful lesson is mainly methodical. A missing technical data does not necessarily mean that an explanation is impossible to investigate. At the same time, the connection between the original acquisition and subsequent transactions may remain an essential question. Anyone who cites this judgment must therefore indicate which agreement is meant by their own evidentiary position. The outcome of another case cannot be copied without comparison of facts. Its own analysis remains focused on verifiability, not on a slogan that crypto profit explains everything.

From source of income to the object under investigation

A provenance reconstruction requires intermediate steps. For example, when selling a car, the sale, receipt of the purchase price and any subsequent conversion into another asset are separate links. A sales contract does not automatically show that exactly the money found was left over. Withdrawals, expenditures and retention periods play a role in savings. The defense does not have to feign impossible completeness, but it must know where the explanation takes a leap.

Work with a simple table: date, event, amount, account or item involved, existing evidence and missing information. Also include expenses and opposing data. A reconstruction that only adds income and skips all expenditure can give a misleading picture. Save original files with their metadata where possible. If documents are lost, request legitimate duplicates from the source. An explanation prepared now may be useful, as long as it remains clear that it has been prepared now and is not presented as a document from the period under investigation.

Origin and science are two different fields of evidence

Even when money has a criminal origin, the appropriate involvement or form of guilt of the suspect must be assessed. For example, an account holder can claim that he did not know what his account was used for. This does not exclude research into circumstances that point to science. The amount of a fee, instructions, warnings or previous transactions may be relevant. The legal question depends on the precise accusation and should not be replaced by a general judgment that someone was naive.

The in-depth discussion of a money mule suspicion covers the provision of an account. For a money laundering file, it is also important which actions you carried out yourself and what information you had at that time. A warning that came after the fact does not have the same meaning as a warning before the transaction. Create a timeline of knowledge, not just payments. Beware of hindsight: what looks suspicious now may have been known differently at the time, but that statement must be based on actual circumstances. (a money mule suspicion)

Fictional example: cash sale and a later purchase

A fictitious mechanic is questioned about a vehicle paid for in cash. He says the money came from the previous sale of a collection. He still has photos and some of the messages, but no full proof of payment. That's no reason to make up missing pieces. The relevant question is which buyer, date and payment can still be independently investigated and how that proceeds relate to the subsequent purchase.

The lawyer can compare the file with the reconstruction and discuss specific research wishes. If significant expenses occurred between sale and purchase, these should be included in the overview. The explanation must describe an actual process, not a conclusive calculation that only exists on paper. This example shows that a partially documented provenance is not immediately worthless, but also not automatically sufficient. The assessment depends on the concrete starting points and the investigation that is still reasonably possible.

A blockade or criminal seizure requires its own purpose

A bank can restrict transactions and the Public Prosecution Service can make criminal seizures. These are different measures. A dispute about money laundering does not automatically make money immediately available. A separate procedure may be necessary to have criminal seizure assessed and other questions may be central than at the final criminal hearing. Therefore, note which authority has taken a measure and which letter states the basis. A customer service message is not the same as a seizure decision.

Make necessary personal or business interests concrete, without moving funds to avoid investigation. Consider the substantiation of salary payments, rent or necessary healthcare costs and discuss what legitimate solution can be requested. Keep the substantive defense of origin and the practical request about availability clearly side by side. This prevents an urgent payment from being confused with an evidentiary argument or a research question from disappearing into purely financial need. The lawyer can assess the correct procedure and timing.

An origin map that also makes uncertainties visible

The map below is intended for consultation with legal assistance. It does not require unlimited collection of private data. Start with what is relevant to the specific accusation and agree on a safe channel. Give each assumption a recognizable status: established, personal memory, someone else's statement or still to be investigated. This makes it possible for a lawyer to provide targeted advice without uncertainties ending up unnoticed as facts in the file.

• Accusation: act, type of debt, object, amount and period examined.
• Reason: concrete circumstances on which the money laundering suspicion is based.
• Source: original income, sale, donation or other stated legal origin.
• Links: receipt, storage, transfers, conversions and relevant expenditure.
• Verification: existing documents, legally retrievable registrations and possible witnesses.
• Own knowledge: information and warnings that were known at the time of trading.
• Measures: bank queries, blocking, criminal seizure, deadlines and agreed next steps.