<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Money laundering &#8211; COMPLIANCEBERATER.TEAM</title>
	<atom:link href="https://complianceberater.team/en/thema/money-laundering/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://complianceberater.team/en/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Feb 2026 16:27:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>de</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>

 
	<item>
		<title>The expiry of the deadline pursuant to Section 46 GWG does not constitute the occurrence of default for an obligor</title>
		<link>https://complianceberater.team/en/the-expiry-of-the-deadline-pursuant-to-section-46-gwg-does-not-constitute-the-occurrence-of-default-for-an-obligor/</link>
		
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jürgen Möthrath]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2025 18:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
				<category><![CDATA[Money laundering]]></category>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://complianceberater.team/the-expiry-of-the-deadline-pursuant-to-section-46-gwg-does-not-constitute-the-occurrence-of-default-for-an-obligor/</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[No automatic default after expiry of the deadline under Section 46 GwG On February 25, 2025, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Frankfurt am Main made an important decision on the Money Laundering Act(case no. 10 U 18/24). Here are the main arguments of the ruling: A bank had received two six-figure credit notes to...]]></description>
		
		
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
