The Bitcoin.de data requests: what affected investors need to know
Two collective information requests, roughly 4,000 cases each, and a deadline that reaches, through DAC 8, far beyond former Bitcoin.de customers. We have been able to help a considerable number of clients from the first round — without a criminal conviction, without the surcharge, and in many cases without evasion interest either.
- First round: request made in 2023, data years 2015–2017, roughly 4,000 accounts with at least €50,000 in annual trading turnover.
- Second round: confirmed by the North Rhine-Westphalia tax authority on 25 September 2025, again roughly 4,000 cases nationwide — the platform and years come from press research, not the official statement itself.
- From the first round, we have been able to help many clients without a criminal conviction, without the surcharge under section 398a of the Fiscal Code, and in numerous cases without evasion interest under section 235 either.
- Note: even without ever holding a Bitcoin.de account, the comparable deadline ends, in our assessment, on 31 July in practice — through DAC 8.
The two rounds at a glance
What is officially confirmed, and what comes from press research — a distinction we think matters, especially since the two are frequently blurred together in reporting.
| First round | Second round | |
|---|---|---|
| Request made | 2023, North Rhine-Westphalia tax investigation office | Data package confirmed 25 September 2025 by the state anti-financial-crime office (LBF NRW) |
| Cases affected | roughly 4,000 accounts | just under 4,000 tax cases nationwide |
| Data years | 2015–2017 (officially confirmed) | reportedly up to 2022 — not officially confirmed |
| Threshold | from €50,000 turnover per year | not officially stated |
| Platform | Bitcoin.de (officially confirmed) | Bitcoin.de suspected, per press research — not named by the authority |
| Result so far | additional tax revenue in the high single-digit millions of euros (as at 08/2025), processing not concluded | evaluation under way, distribution to local tax offices has begun |
The press release from North Rhine-Westphalia's state anti-financial-crime office of 25 September 2025 names neither the platform nor the years affected. That it is again Bitcoin.de, and that the years extend to 2022, comes from reporting by the business papers Wirtschaftswoche and Handelsblatt. For your own assessment that makes no practical difference — for how much weight to give a source, it does.
What a collective information request is in law
A collective information request is not directed at a named individual but at a third party — here, a trading platform — holding data on a large number of users. The basis is section 93(1a) of the Fiscal Code, together with section 208(1) sentence 1 no. 3, which grants the tax investigation offices their own powers of enquiry.
The Federal Fiscal Court approved this practice in principle as far back as 2013: a collective information request is permissible where sufficient cause exists to suspect that the data sought may be relevant to taxation — a bare fishing expedition is not permitted (Federal Fiscal Court, judgment of 16 May 2013, II R 15/12). In the Bitcoin.de case, sufficient cause was established partly through a turnover threshold: the first round covered accounts with at least €50,000 in trading turnover per year.
An important point to understand: a collective information request is not itself an accusation. It only gives the tax authority the names and account data of users meeting the criteria. Only afterwards does the comparison against existing tax returns take place — and only where that comparison reveals a gap does the administrative measure turn into an individual case.
What happens next for those affected
Four steps between the authority's request and possible proceedings against you personally.
The platform transmits the data
Bitcoin.de hands over the account data of users meeting the request's criteria to the requesting authority — in the first round, the North Rhine-Westphalia tax investigation office.
Central processing and distribution
The data is evaluated centrally and then passed to the local tax office responsible for each user's place of residence nationwide — regardless of which state originally made the request.
Comparison against existing returns
The responsible tax office checks whether, and to what extent, the reported turnover appears in the tax returns filed for the years concerned. Where a gap appears, a request for information or a hearing letter to the individual usually follows first.
Voluntary correction or criminal tax proceedings
Depending on how the person concerned responds and how the tax authority assesses the facts, the matter either resolves through an agreed correction or criminal tax proceedings are opened. This is precisely the point at which it is decided whether the route of a voluntary disclosure with immunity from prosecution remains open. Our article on a letter from the tax office
Why this applies even without a Bitcoin.de account
The most important point in this article — and the one most often missed.
A collective information request is a targeted measure, limited to one platform and one period. From 2026, it is superseded by an automatic reporting mechanism spanning every platform: under DAC 8, essentially all crypto-asset service providers report their users' data to the tax authorities — not just Bitcoin.de, but every platform within scope.
The due diligence duties under DAC 8 expressly extend to existing user relationships, not only new customers. Anyone who has held an account for years with any platform within scope becomes visible through this — regardless of whether that platform was ever the subject of a collective information request. The first transmission of this data to German tax offices is expected in 2027.
- Collective requesttargeted, one platform, one period
- DAC 8automatic, every platform in scope, ongoing
- Coversexisting, historical account relationships too
- First transmissionexpected from 2027
We have set out the full picture — which data is transmitted, which providers are covered, and three common misconceptions — in a dedicated article. Our article on DAC 8
The bridge back, open until 31 July
For Bitcoin.de just as for DAC 8: a voluntary disclosure's protective effect ends with discovery of the offence, and that point can be narrowed down.
Time remaining
until 31.07.2027, 23:59 (German time)
After that, further reporting data should be expected to have reached local tax offices.
The bar in section 371(2) sentence 1 no. 2 of the Fiscal Code takes effect once the offence is discovered and the taxpayer had to expect that. In our view, what matters is the arrival of the data at the responsible local tax office — not whether it has actually been processed there, and not whether you personally have received a letter yet.
For the ongoing distribution of the second Bitcoin.de round, just as for the first DAC 8 transmission expected in 2027, we take the view that from 1 August a reasonable taxpayer had to expect that arrival.
You will not, in case of doubt, know the exact day of arrival at your own tax office. If it comes to it, that can be established afterwards through file inspection in the investigation — waiting until then means relying on a fact you cannot know at the moment you have to decide.
Our experience from the first round
Not every case arising from a collective information request ends with a penalty, a surcharge and interest. There is a legal reason why.
From the first Bitcoin.de round, a considerable number of those affected contacted us after receiving a letter from the tax office. In many of these cases we were able to reach an outcome with neither a criminal conviction nor a surcharge under section 398a of the Fiscal Code — and in a number of cases, no evasion interest under section 235 either.
Section 235 of the Fiscal Code presupposes evaded tax — meaning intent. Section 398a presupposes intentional tax evasion above the €25,000 threshold, which is exactly what first makes a voluntary disclosure with a surcharge necessary in the first place. Where neither intent nor recklessness can be established for the years concerned, what exists in law is not tax evasion at all, but an ordinary correction. The tax itself, together with ordinary interest under section 233a, is still owed — but not the surcharge, and not evasion interest.
For the years 2015 to 2017 specifically — the core of the first round — this is not merely a line of defence but often the more natural reading of the facts: the Anlage SO form has only asked specifically about crypto-asset gains since the 2023 assessment period. Anyone who filed a return before that point, to the best of their knowledge and using the form as it was put to them, filled it in as presented. Whether an accusation of reckless understatement can even be derived from that in the individual case is a question we are currently also pursuing before the courts. More in our article on the model notice of appeal
This is not a promise for every case. Whether a comparable outcome is achievable depends on the specific circumstances — the documentation available, the amounts involved, the filing history to date. We assess this individually for each client before giving any view.
Statements about past engagements describe our experience. No particular outcome for your case can be derived from them.
Checklist
Six steps if you held a Bitcoin.de account between 2015 and 2022 — or traded crypto assets on any other platform.
- Check whether you held a Bitcoin.de account in the period concerned and whether that turnover is fully declared
- Even without any Bitcoin.de connection, check whether every year is declared for which another platform could supply data from 2027
- Have any letter already received from the tax office properly classified before you respond yourself — the type of letter decides whether the bar applies
- Secure transaction histories from the period concerned now, not only when needed — older exchange data becomes harder to obtain over time
- Have it assessed whether intent or recklessness can even be established for the years concerned, before assuming a voluntary disclosure with surcharge is required
- If in doubt, make contact before 31 July, not after — preparing a complete voluntary disclosure takes weeks
Questions and answers
What is a "Sammelauskunftsersuchen"?
Were nearly 8,000 Bitcoin.de users really affected?
I never had a Bitcoin.de account — does this still concern me?
Why specifically 31 July?
Can I still make a disclosure free of penalty and interest?
What if I have already received a letter from the tax office?
Legal position: 2 September 2026. Sources: section 93(1a), section 208(1) sentence 1 no. 3, section 371(2), section 398a, section 235 and section 233a of the Fiscal Code; Federal Fiscal Court, judgment of 16 May 2013, II R 15/12.
On the first round: press release of North Rhine-Westphalia's state anti-financial-crime office; reporting by Haufe, WINHELLER and other professional publications, as at August 2025.
On the second round: press release of the North Rhine-Westphalia tax administration of 25 September 2025, which names neither the platform nor the years; the connection to Bitcoin.de and to the years up to 2022 comes from reporting by Wirtschaftswoche and Handelsblatt and is not officially confirmed.
The statements on the decisive point of discovery and on the absence of recklessness for older years reflect our own legal view; they are not settled by the highest court in every respect. Statements about past engagements describe our experience and permit no conclusion about the outcome in your case. This article is not advice on an individual case. Where this English text and the German version differ, the German version governs.