Asset class

Crypto accounts in Germany

Crypto held through a German-facing platform does not sit in a public register the way securities or land titles do. What decides whether it can be recovered is the custody chain: who controlled the private keys, what the platform's terms said about ownership at the time of subscription, and whether the claim runs against the platform itself or against a separate custodian. A refusal to pay out is almost always a contractual dispute over that chain, not a gap in a public record.

Register and custody layer

German law keeps no central register of crypto holdings comparable to the land register or the commercial register. Ownership of coins or tokens on an exchange exists only in that platform's internal ledger. That ledger, not any public record, is the layer that matters: it shows whether an account was segregated from the platform's own assets or pooled with other customers' balances under one omnibus wallet. A platform authorised for crypto custody business in Germany is on file with the supervisor, but that licensing record does not itself prove who owns a specific balance. The starting point for any dispute is usually the jurisdiction overview for Germany, read against the platform's own account terms.

The document rarely handed over

The document investors rarely receive on request is the custody statement itself: a record showing, for the relevant period, whether their holding was segregated or commingled, and under whose control. Platforms will point to standard terms of service instead, and those terms often say less than the investor assumed at subscription, a gap covered separately in what the account contract usually leaves out. Where the custody statement or any supporting document originates outside Germany and must be used in a German proceeding, legalisation can be required. For Germany, the Apostille Convention applies, in force since 13 February 1966, subject to a reservation and notification on file [N409]. Whether that formality is needed depends on where the document was issued and where it will be used.

What belongs in a pre-deal report

A 6D report on a crypto platform account checks facts that can be verified now, not outcomes. That means: the custody statement or its absence for the period between subscription and the first missed withdrawal; the version of the terms of service in force at subscription, against later versions; the platform's country of incorporation and licensing status; whether the claim, once the custody structure is mapped, runs against the platform or against a nominee custodian, a distinction explained in what custody of a crypto account actually means for a claim; and whether any document in the file will need an apostille before it can be used. A paid initial assessment applies this checklist to the specific account and terms, and states what the file currently supports before anything is sent to the platform. That review sits ahead of the broader crypto and platform accounts overview and the related frozen account service.