An EVR-registration due to fraud is one of the most severe measures that a bank or insurer can take. The consequences are enormous: no mortgage, no financing, and sometimes even problems when opening a new bank account. Many clients come to us with the question: “Is a bank allowed to register me as a fraudster based on a suspicion?”
The short answer: no, not just like that.
In this blog we explain when an EVR-registration due to fraud is unlawful and where banks often go too far legally.
What do banks consider ‘fraud’?
In practice, banks use a broad and often vague definition of fraud. It is not only about deliberate deception, but sometimes also about:
-
incorrectly completed forms
-
unclear transactions
-
administrative errors
-
insufficient documentation of income
What is legally problematic: not every mistake is fraud. Fraud requires intent or deliberate deception. That distinction is often insufficiently made in EVR cases.
May a bank register someone without a criminal conviction?
Yes, that can — but only under strict conditions.
An EVR registration is not a punishment, but it is a severe measure with a punitive effect. Therefore, strict requirements apply to:
-
evidence
-
due care
-
balancing of interests
A mere suspicion or internal conclusion is insufficient.
When does a bank go too far legally?
1. Too low an evidentiary threshold
We regularly see EVR registrations that are based on:
-
suspicions
-
internal risk models
-
assumptions without hard facts
Without concrete, verifiable data a fraud registration is legally vulnerable.
2. No distinction between error and fraud
An administrative error, mistake or incomplete provision of information is not automatically fraud.
Is that distinction not made? Then the registration is often unlawful.
3. Disproportionate consequences
An EVR registration often has consequences that go far beyond the alleged incident, such as:
-
blockade of the entire banking system
-
long-term financial exclusion
-
serious consequences for entrepreneurship
If these consequences have not been taken into account, the measure misses its mark.
4. No (or inadequate) weighing of interests
A bank must demonstrably weigh:
-
its own interest
-
the interest of the financial system
-
your personal and societal interests
Is that weighing absent or is it standard and cursory? Then that is legally insufficient.
5. Too long or incorrect retention period
Fraud registrations are sometimes kept in place for years, without reassessment.
That is contrary to the principle that personal data must not be kept longer than necessary.
What can you do about an EVR registration for fraud?
Step 1: Demand access
You have the right to:
-
access to the registration
-
the factual basis
-
the exact basis of the fraud allegation
Without that information, a defense is impossible.
Step 2: Mount a legal defense
An effective defense focuses on:
-
lack of intent
-
disproportionality
-
violation of privacy rules
-
incorrect findings of fact
Standard objections are almost never sufficient.
Step 3: Litigate if necessary
If the bank maintains its position, a judge can:
-
have the registration removed
-
determine that the bank acted unlawfully
-
find that the balancing of interests is inadequate
In practice, we see that banks regularly cut their losses as soon as the matter is taken to court.
Common misconceptions about fraud registrations
❌ “The bank is always right”
❌ “Fraud does not need to be proven”
❌ “You can’t do anything about an EVR registration”
✔️ In reality fraud registrations are regularly corrected or removed.
Conclusion: fraud is not a label that a bank may simply apply
An EVR registration due to fraud is far-reaching and requires care, evidence, and a tailored approach. Banks and insurers regularly go too far in this. That makes many registrations legally challengeable.
Do you doubt your fraud registration? Have it assessed promptly and on the merits. The sooner you act, the greater the chance of rectification.
