Search
Contact
09.05.2023 | KPMG Law Insights

Transparency register and real estate in Germany – excessive reporting obligations for foreign companies

The Federal Administrative Office has clarified that foreign companies must be reported to the Transparency Register even if they only indirectly hold shares in German real estate. The reporting requirement applies to all companies in the investment chain. However, only if their shareholding reaches a threshold of at least 90 percent.

The real estate market has long been considered by experts to be particularly vulnerable to money laundering. For this reason, the legislator is increasingly pursuing the goal of ensuring that it is comprehensible to whom real estate property is attributable.

Against this background, notaries were initially required to check whether the acquiring company is registered in the transparency register in the case of real estate purchase agreements. Insofar as this was not the case, the notary may not perform the notarization (prohibition of notarization).

In order to also cover foreign structures, reporting requirements for foreign companies were successively introduced. Until now, the latter were obliged to report their beneficial owners to the transparency register if they acquired ownership of real estate located in Germany directly or by way of a share deal.

Sanctions Enforcement Act II obliges foreign companies to report to the transparency register

With the Sanctions Enforcement Act II, reporting obligations for foreign companies to the transparency register have been further extended as of January 1, 2023.

The reporting obligation now also applies to foreign companies with existing real estate in Germany. This is subject to an implementation deadline of June 30, 2023.

This applies both to direct investments in real estate and to share deals in which shares in companies owning real estate were acquired in the past (acquisition transaction pursuant to Section 1 (3) or (3a) of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act – GrEStG).

As a relief, the legislator has provided that a reporting obligation does not apply if the companies concerned have already transmitted the information on the beneficial owner to a register of another EU member state.

Clarification by the Federal Office of Administration dated May 5, 2023 on reporting requirements for indirect holdings in German real estate

As is so often the case, the new regulation raised various questions in practice, in particular whether only the foreign company in which the acquisition transaction pursuant to Sec. 1 (3) or (3a) GrEStG is or has been realized must be reported or whether all foreign companies in the chain of ownership are subject to a reporting obligation.

The Federal Administrative Office responsible for the Transparency Register has provided guidance on this issue in the FAQ newly published on May 5, 2023:

  • According to the Federal Administrative Office, the transparency obligation extends to all foreign legal entities to which shares in a company with domestic real property are or (in the past) were directly or indirectly transferred.
  • In the opinion of the authority, this means that even for existing properties
    all
    legal entities in the chain of shareholdings are subject to the notification obligation, insofar as they each individually meet the requirements of Section 1 (1) of the German Commercial Code. 3 or par. 3a GrEStG and meet the threshold of at least 90% of the shares.
  • The principles of the Real Estate Transfer Tax Act apply to the determination of the directly or indirectly controlled shares in the company (i.e., in particular, calculating through the threshold of 90% at each shareholding level).
  • In turn, this means that if foreign legal entities within the participation chain do not meet the requirements of Section 1 para. 3 or para. 3a GrEStG – here the threshold value of 90% is probably meant in particular – they are also not obliged to notify the transparency register.

Consequences of an incorrect or missing report to the transparency register

Non-compliance with the above-mentioned reporting requirements may result in substantial fines. According to the catalog of fines, these fines are based primarily on the company’s sales or balance sheet total and can amount to up to EUR 150,000 in the case of a first-time infringement. In case of serious, repeated or systematic violations, fines may increase up to EUR 1 million.

In addition, the law provides for “naming-and-shaming” in the case of final decisions imposing fines of EUR 200 or more – currently, more than 1,200 decisions have already been published.

From an economic point of view, it may be particularly critical that, due to the express prohibition of notarization in real estate transactions, a transaction may fail or, in any case, be significantly delayed if it is not reported to the transparency register or is reported incorrectly.

Conclusion

While this provides a certain degree of clarity on the one hand, on the other hand the legal understanding of the Federal Administrative Office creates a considerable burden for foreign groups of companies with German real estate holdings.

Explore #more

05.11.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Security Clearance Checks Under the SÜG—Practical Implementation and Common Mistakes

Before employees are granted access to sensitive information or perform security-sensitive tasks as part of an assignment, their reliability must be verified through a special…

04.11.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

EUDR: These obligations apply throughout the supply chain – as of 2026

After being postponed twice, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is expected to take effect on December 30, 2026. Companies that handle certain products derived…

04.11.2026 | In the media

JUVE: Risks Associated with the Use of AI at the Highest Levels

AI can assist executive boards, supervisory boards, and managing directors in making decisions. However, unverified results can create liability risks. Fraport General Counsel Thomas Stoll…

30.10.2026 | In the media

New Podcast in the Packaging Journal: PWR in Practice—Who Is Liable, Who Pays, and What Are the Current Rules?

The core obligations of the PPWR have been in effect since August 12, 2026. In the Packaging People podcast, Dr. Simon Meyer of KPMG Law…

29.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG and KPMG Law Article in *Betriebs-Berater*: Pitfalls in Customs Law

In light of geopolitical changes, new trade barriers, and more rigorous audits, customs and foreign trade law are increasingly becoming a focus for companies. The…

27.10.2026 | In the media

Op-Ed in Versicherungsmonitor: The Environment Is Finally Becoming a Compliance Risk

With the implementation of the new EU Environmental Criminal Law Directive, the environment is becoming a core area of managerial liability. Managers face reputational damage,…

27.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

Federal Court of Justice on the Summary Report: Tax-Exempt but Still a Criminal Offense

Can someone be punished for sales tax evasion even if the sales were subsequently deemed tax-exempt? Yes, says the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in…

23.10.2026 | KPMG Law Insights

PHP2Shell may trigger legal obligations for companies

Two critical vulnerabilities in the PHP programming language are threatening web applications and digital products worldwide. The Federal Office for Information Security (BSI) has warned…

20.10.2026 | In the media

KPMG Law Guest Column in it daily: The Business Judgment Rule and the Use of AI

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence presents corporate leadership with diverse and far-reaching decisions. These decisions concern not only the selection and deployment of appropriate…

19.10.2026 | In the media

New articles have been published in PERSONALFÜHRUNG

The current issue of PERSONALFÜHRUNG (10–11/2026) features two articles by female experts from KPMG and KPMG Law. In the article “Will AI Save the Day?…

Contact

Arndt Rodatz

Partner
Head of criminal tax law

Fuhlentwiete 5
20355 Hamburg

Tel.: +49 40 360994 5081
arodatz@kpmg-law.com

Christian Judis

Senior Manager

Friedenstraße 10
81671 München

Tel.: +49 89 59976061028
cjudis@kpmg-law.com

© 2026 KPMG Law Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, associated with KPMG AG Wirtschaftsprüfungsgesellschaft, a public limited company under German law and a member of the global KPMG organisation of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Limited, a Private English Company Limited by Guarantee. All rights reserved. For more details on the structure of KPMG’s global organisation, please visit https://home.kpmg/governance.

KPMG International does not provide services to clients. No member firm is authorised to bind or contract KPMG International or any other member firm to any third party, just as KPMG International is not authorised to bind or contract any other member firm.

Scroll