Prohibition of Cash Payment on the Acquisition of Real Property

(1) In legal transactions directed at the purchase or exchange of domestic real property, consideration owed may be effected only by means other than cash, crypto-assets, gold, platinum or precious stones. The same applies to the acquisition of interests in companies to whose assets a domestic item of real property belongs, directly or indirectly. Where the debtor hands over cash, gold, platinum or precious stones, or transfers crypto-assets, as consideration, he or she may demand their return under the provisions of the Civil Code on the return of unjustified enrichment; sections 815 and 817, second sentence of the Civil Code do not apply.
(2) In legal transactions under subsection (1), first sentence, the parties involved must demonstrate to the notary who is to file the application for registration of the acquirer as owner or holder of a heritable building right with the land registry that the consideration was rendered by means other than cash, crypto-assets, gold, platinum or precious stones. Payment confirmations from credit institutions involved in the transaction on the seller's or purchaser's side are, in particular, suitable evidence. In the case of contractual amendments to legal transactions under subsection (1), first sentence, relating to the consideration and made after a binding conveyance, the parties involved shall, for the purpose of the review under subsections (3) and (4), submit to the notary consistent statements regarding those amendments.
(3) In legal transactions under subsection (1), first sentence, the notary instructed to file the application for registration shall check the evidence submitted to him or her under subsection (2), first sentence, for plausibility. He or she may file the application for registration of the acquirer as owner or holder of a heritable building right with the land registry only once he or she has 1. as regards the evidence a) established its plausibility, or b) in the case where no plausible evidence was submitted to him or her within a reasonable time after the consideration fell due, unsuccessfully called upon the parties involved to submit the evidence within a reasonable period, and 2. in the case where he or she is obliged to file a report under section 43(1), filed that report, and section 46 does not preclude this, on the basis that the transaction may be carried out at the earliest once the fifth working day after the day the report was sent has elapsed.
(4) Insofar as, in legal transactions under subsection (1), first sentence, the consideration is, under the agreement of the parties involved, to be rendered wholly or partly only after the application for registration has been filed, the notary shall check the plausibility of the evidence within a reasonable time after it falls due. Where several part-payments fall due within one year of the filing of the application for registration, the notary may, after the expiry of one year, review the plausibility of the evidence as regards the part-payments that have fallen due by that time. Where establishing the due date requires knowledge of circumstances not known to the notary at the time the application was filed, the parties involved shall subsequently inform the notary of those circumstances. As regards the portion falling due before registration, the review obligation is governed by subsection (3). Subsection (2) applies correspondingly. Where no plausible evidence was submitted to the notary within a reasonable time after the consideration fell due, or after the point in time provided for in the second sentence, he or she shall call upon the parties involved to submit the evidence within a reasonable period. Insofar as the consideration is to be rendered more than one year after the filing of the application for registration, the review obligation under the first sentence does not apply.
(5) Subsections (2) to (4) do not apply where the consideration owed does not exceed an amount of EUR 10,000, or insofar as it is rendered via an escrow account of the notary instructed to file the application for registration. In addition, plausible evidence within the meaning of subsections (3) and (4) is also deemed to have been provided where the notary lacks plausible evidence under subsection (2) for a value of no more than EUR 10,000 of the consideration owed. Subsection (4) does not apply where, on the basis of the structure of the contract, it appears excluded that the agreement for subsequent rendering of the consideration is based on the consideration originating from a criminal act that could constitute a predicate offence to money laundering, or that the acquisition is connected with terrorist financing.