Germany’s New Fraud Reality: Inside a Rapidly Evolving Scam Landscape

Germany is facing one of Europe’s fastest-rising scam and cybercrime waves, from deepfake investment ads to large-scale fraud networks. Here is a closer look at what is driving the shift and what banks can do in response.

In October 2025, German regulators and law enforcement agencies, working alongside BaFin, announced the shutdown of more than 1,400 illegal cyber-trading websites. Many of these platforms specifically targeted German consumers or relied on German infrastructure.

Just a few weeks later, on 5 November 2025, investigators supported by Eurojust announced the arrest of 18 people linked to a sprawling online fraud and money laundering network. The group had siphoned off millions through compromised payment channels and a well-organized network of mule accounts.

Yet these high-profile wins tell only part of the story.

With a cybercrime clearance rate of just 32%, Germany is confronting a threat landscape that continues to intensify. Europol and BKA reporting repeatedly highlight Germany as a major target for cyber-enabled financial crime, underscoring how quickly fraud is outpacing traditional defenses.

All of this positions Germany as a telling example of Europe’s accelerating fraud problem. A deeper look reveals why, and what it will take for banks to respond effectively.

The Data Behind Germany’s Fraud Surge

Germany approaches 2026 in an unusual position. It remains one of Europe’s strongest and most technologically advanced economies, but it is also facing a growing wave of digital fraud that is reshaping the country’s risk profile.

Cyberattacks have become a major source of disruption for German businesses and consumers, and even the best reporting shows just a fraction of what is really happening. According to Visa Security, only about 60% of people who lose money to fraud ever file an official complaint, which means the real losses are far higher than reported.

Phishing continues to dominate the threat landscape, and smishing in particular stood out throughout 2024. Four out of five consumers have already received fraudulent messages that appear to come from delivery services. About 67% report receiving phishing messages that impersonate their bank, a trend that is especially important given the upcoming PSD3 requirements around reimbursement for bank impersonation (“spoofing”) fraud.

These patterns repeat across other scams. More than 40% of consumers have received fabricated emergency messages or grandchild tricks, and over a third have stumbled into fake online shops.

Newer forms of fraud are also gaining traction. False investment and cryptocurrency offerings are now part of everyday life for many consumers, with nearly one in five reporting exposure to an investment scam attempt.

The changing nature of these scams is visible in the way they are delivered. One recent case involved a convincingly produced video of defense minister Boris Pistorius circulating as a paid advertisement on Facebook, TikTok and Instagram. In the clip, he appears to endorse a new government program that promises rapid economic growth and secure profits for every citizen.

The AI-generated fake investment sites, designed to push people toward fraudulent investment offers, shows how quickly criminals are adopting new tools to make their schemes look legitimate.

Liability in Germany: Awaiting PSD3

As fraud rises, German consumers are turning to their banks for guidance and reassurance. Almost 92% expect their own institution to inform them about payment security and alert them to current scams. Many also assume that reimbursement should be the norm when funds are stolen. The pressure on banks to take a larger share of responsibility is clearly growing.

Legal protections, as it stands, do not fully reflect this expectation. Under the current rules, victims of authorized push payment (APP) fraud have no automatic right to reimbursement. If a manipulated customer approves a transfer, the transaction is considered authorized, and the bank is under no obligation to refund the loss.

Victims who want their money back usually have only one path. They must take the case to civil court and argue that the bank shares responsibility or failed to meet its duty of care. That can include anything from unclear warnings to insufficient checks on suspicious activity.

Outcomes depend heavily on how each court interprets negligence and responsibility. In one 2024 case involving Sparkasse, the court concluded that both the bank and the victim contributed to the loss and ordered the bank to reimburse about 20% of the stolen funds. Cases like this are still the exception rather than the rule.

This may change soon. The latest PSD3 proposal includes liability for bank impersonation scams, a move that would slightly shift the balance of responsibility and give consumers stronger protection. If adopted, it would mark a significant shift in how European banks handle scam losses.

Lifecycle Disruption: A Way Out of the Scam Crisis

With the level of exposure German consumers face and the financial losses recorded in recent years, the pressure on banks to strengthen their fraud defenses has never been greater. Customers are increasingly assuming that their bank should warn them, guide them and reimburse them when scams succeed. Combined with the upcoming PSD3 liability changes, the demand for institutions to take broader responsibility is unmistakable.

The challenge is simple to explain but far harder to tackle. The examples at the beginning of this article show that fraud is not a single moment of deception. It is a lifecycle supported by infrastructure, from phishing hooks and targeted outreach to deliberate manipulation and the use of mule accounts.

Criminals rarely start at the point of payment. They begin weeks or even months earlier by setting up phishing domains, pushing fraudulent advertisements, grooming potential victims or impersonating trusted institutions. By the time someone is ready to transfer money, the scam is usually well advanced.

This is why modern fraud prevention must move beyond checking transactions at the moment they are approved. It requires a broader view of the entire lifecycle. Banks need to identify the signals that appear long before the payment is made, from early exposure to suspicious content through to behavioral signs that someone is being pressured or coached.

Shifting Protection Left: Why Early Intervention Matters

As payment fraud evolves, the line between cyberattacks and financial scams continues to blur. Phishing domains, fake apps, compromised devices and impersonation campaigns are no longer separate threats. They sit on the same timeline, which is why many banks are bringing cyber and fraud disciplines closer together. Instead of treating these risks in separate operational silos, the fusion approach recognizes that both cyber signals and fraud signals contribute to the same outcome.

A key element of this mindset is the shift left strategy. Rather than focusing protection only at the moment a transaction is approved, banks aim to intervene much earlier in the lifecycle.

This lifecycle can be understood in four stages.

• Infrastructure: Every scam begins with preparation. Criminals register phishing domains, create fake investment sites, purchase malware tools, launch botnets or build deepfake campaigns. Identifying these signals early gives banks valuable time to react before customers ever see the threat.
• Targeting and manipulation: Once the infrastructure is in place, the next step is outreach. Fraudsters contact victims through phishing emails, text messages or increasingly through AI generated content. Equipping customers with intuitive and reliable tools that help them recognize scam attempts and understand manipulative tactics is one of the most effective ways to empower users and increase their resistance to future fraud.
• Transaction: By the time money is about to move, the scam is already well advanced. This stage requires real-time monitoring through contextual behavioral intelligence. Effective defenses bring together behavioral and transactional signals, device intelligence and environmental indicators to detect manipulation at the moment a decision is made.
• Money laundering: If the funds leave the account, the final phase begins. Money mule networks move the money quickly across accounts and borders. Visibility into mule patterns and cross institution intelligence can help banks recover funds and prevent the same networks from operating again.

Together, these stages form the backbone of a comprehensive fraud disruption strategy. Protecting customers at the moment of payment is essential, but stopping fraud rings in each stage of their operation is what truly shifts outcomes.

Helping German Banks Stay Ahead

This lifecycle view also aligns with where the German market is heading. With PSD3 set to reshape liability around bank impersonation fraud, and with German consumers expecting far more protection from their banks, a shift-left approach gives institutions the opportunity to stay ahead of both regulation and public pressure. For Germany, lifecycle disruption is a roadmap for what comes next.

Interested in exploring how lifecycle-based disruption can support your fraud prevention strategy? ThreatMark is ready to help.

Talk to a fraud fighter