By Gunnar Schupelius
The number of so-called “account retrieval procedures” is increasing rapidly, the state is spying on financial privacy. According to Gunnar Schupelius, what was intended as a defense against terrorism and money laundering is increasingly becoming an instrument of control for ordinary citizens.
Banking secrecy protects the privacy of customers. The bank is bound by a kind of professional secrecy, similar to lawyers or doctors.
17 years ago, banking secrecy in Germany was lifted on a crucial point: On April 1, 2005, the “Act to Promote Tax Honesty” came into force.
Since then, credit institutions have had to provide information about accounts, custody accounts and safe deposit boxes if the tax or social authorities request it.
It is an automated access to the private account, which takes place without the knowledge of the account holder, also called “account retrieval procedure” in official German.
Initially, it was said that this access would of course only be granted if an acute danger had to be averted, for example if there was a suspicion of organized crime, money laundering or terrorism.
However, access was by no means only permitted in serious cases, but increasingly also in the case of harmless initial suspicions. In 2014, bailiffs, job centers and all other social authorities were also given the opportunity to secretly inspect accounts. In 2016, the minimum limit of 500 euros was abolished.
Over the years, the number of account retrieval procedures has increased rapidly. This is evident from the Federal Government’s response of July 11 to a question from the CDU/CSU parliamentary group in the German Bundestag.
According to this, the Federal Central Tax Office queried the account details of German citizens 1.14 million times last year. In 2015 it was still 302,000 and in 2017 almost 700,000 hits.
Security issues hardly play a role when accessing the accounts. In the 1.4 million calls in 2021, the police were only represented 800 times and the Office for the Protection of the Constitution only 191 times. The bailiffs shared the lion’s share of the checks, followed by the financial and social authorities.
When asked by parliamentary group leader Friedrich Merz whether this mania for control was appropriate, the federal government replied that it considered “the account access procedure to be an efficient and successful means of setting and collecting taxes and social benefits evenly and of preventing fraud.”
There is no longer any talk of serious crimes here. Now it’s just a matter of controlling ordinary citizens who are not trusted and whose accounts are therefore spied on.
You can think that’s right. But the transparent bank customer was introduced through the back door. Covertly, quietly, the authorities trespassed on the financial privacy that was once protected.
The state must combat fraud and crime, but also protect civil rights, which include banking secrecy. Civil rights take a back seat. Total control is the goal.
Is Gunnar Schupelius right? Call: 030/2591 73153 or email: [email protected]