When an employer issues a summary dismissal because they suspect an employee committed a crime, this is called a suspicion-based termination. The case before the Düsseldorf Higher Labor Court shows how complex such proceedings can be. A long-time bank advisor allegedly authorized a €200,000 transfer while gold worth nearly €300,000 disappeared from a safe deposit box. The bank dismissed him summarily – based on suspicion, not a proven act.
Suspicion-Based Termination: What Does It Actually Mean?
A suspicion-based termination is an extraordinary dismissal that does not rest on a proven breach of duty but on an urgent suspicion of a crime. The employer must demonstrate that concrete circumstances suggest the employee committed a serious crime or breach of duty. Unlike a conduct-based termination where the act is established, a suspicion-based termination requires only a high degree of probability.
Case law requires that the suspicion be based on objective facts, not mere subjective assumptions. Additionally, the employer must have conducted all reasonable investigations to clarify the facts. Only if these investigations yield no exculpatory evidence can a suspicion-based termination be justified.
A suspicion-based termination is permissible only in exceptional cases, as it constitutes a severe interference with the employee’s rights. It presupposes that the relationship of trust between the parties has been so fundamentally destroyed that continued collaboration – even until the end of the notice period – is unreasonable. The Federal Labor Court has developed strict standards for this, which must be examined in each individual case.
The Case Before the Düsseldorf Higher Labor Court: Gold, Cash, and an Authorized Transfer
The plaintiff has been employed as a private banking advisor at a bank since 1988. Since 2022, he advised the long-standing bank client K., born in 1938. Previously, K. was advised by the now former employee A., who was deputy head of department. A. held a notarized general power of attorney since 2019 and account powers of attorney for K. since August 2025.
On June 27, 2025, K. and A. visited a bank branch together. They jointly withdrew €500,000 in cash and took delivery of purchased gold worth nearly €300,000. The plaintiff accompanied both to the underground garage while K. waited in the car. The plaintiff then went alone with A., who carried the money and gold, to the safe deposit box area. They deposited both in a safe deposit box belonging to A. K. held a power of attorney for this box.
On September 15, 2025, the plaintiff arranged for the daily limit on K.’s checking account to be raised to €200,000. A. then attempted an online transfer of €200,000 from K.’s account to his own account at another bank. The bank’s security measures initially blocked this transfer. On September 17, 2025, A. presented a signed transfer order, which was flagged as suspicious and forwarded to the plaintiff for review. The plaintiff approved the order. After this transaction was discovered, K.’s attorney notified the plaintiff of the illegality and demanded sight of the document. K. denied having completed and signed the order. K. also reported that when the safe deposit box was opened on November 4, 2025, the gold holdings were no longer present.
Following an internal investigation and a hearing of the plaintiff, the bank issued an extraordinary summary dismissal on December 12, 2025, based on suspicion, alternatively with a social run-out period until June 30, 2026. The plaintiff is contesting this with a protection against dismissal action. He argues that he neither took the gold nor enabled A. to do so. He had encountered a structure accepted by the bank and had no knowledge of any danger posed by A. Regarding the transfer, he had compared the signature with the reference signature in the client file and saw no reason for a callback.
The Düsseldorf Higher Labor Court will hear the case on October 8, 2026, to rule on the lawfulness of this dismissal. The outcome is uncertain – and that is precisely what makes this case relevant for many employees who find themselves in a similar situation.
When Does Suspicion Justify a Summary Dismissal?
A summary dismissal based on suspicion requires that the suspicion be “urgent.” This means: concrete facts must exist that point to a serious breach of duty by the employee with a high degree of probability. A mere gut feeling or vague assumptions are not sufficient. The employer must clarify the facts as far as possible before terminating.
Case law demands a comprehensive balancing of interests. The severity of the allegation, the employee’s role, the length of service, and personal circumstances must be weighed. The more serious the suspicion, the more likely a summary dismissal may be justified. For long-standing employees with an unblemished record, the requirements are particularly high.
In the case of the bank advisor, an aggravating factor is that he authorized a transfer that may have been unlawful. If he acted negligently in doing so, this could constitute a breach of duty. Whether the suspicion is “urgent” enough will be assessed by the court based on the evidence presented.
Requirements the Employer Must Meet for a Valid Suspicion-Based Termination
For a suspicion-based termination to be valid, several requirements must be met cumulatively. First, an urgent suspicion of a crime must exist, based on objective facts. Second, the employer must hear the employee before termination. This hearing is mandatory, as the employee must have the opportunity to respond to the allegations and present any exculpatory evidence.
Third, the employer must have conducted all reasonable investigations. This includes questioning witnesses, reviewing documents, and examining alibis. Fourth, the termination must comply with the deadline in Section 626(2) of the German Civil Code (BGB) – within two weeks of learning the material facts. This deadline is very short and is frequently missed in practice.
Additionally, the employer must consult the works council if one exists. In the bank advisor’s case, the works council was involved, as was the equal opportunities officer. If the employer violates these formal requirements, the termination is invalid – regardless of whether the suspicion is substantively justified.
Dismissal Received: Deadlines and First Steps for Affected Employees
If you receive a dismissal – whether summary or ordinary – swift action is critical. The most important deadline is the three-week period for filing a protection against dismissal action. This period begins upon receipt of the dismissal notice and is governed by Section 4 of the Protection Against Dismissal Act (KSchG). If the action is not filed within this period, the dismissal is deemed valid, even if it was substantively unfounded. A comprehensive overview of the protection against dismissal action, its requirements, and the procedure can be found in our guide Protection Against Dismissal Action: Everything You Need to Know.
In the first few days, you should absolutely consult a certified specialist attorney for employment law. The attorney will assess whether the dismissal is formally and substantively lawful and, if appropriate, file the action. At the same time, you should secure all relevant documents: employment contract, dismissal letter, payslips, correspondence with the employer, and witness contacts.
Further practical tips are available in our checklist for the first days after dismissal. There you will learn how to meet deadlines, secure your claims, and avoid typical mistakes.
Severance Pay in a Suspicion-Based Termination: What Is Realistic?
Severance pay is not automatically owed in a suspicion-based termination. Unlike a dismissal for operational reasons, where the employer often offers severance to avoid litigation, the situation differs for conduct-based or suspicion-based terminations. If the dismissal is invalid, the employee has a claim to continued employment – not to severance. Severance only comes into play if both parties agree to a settlement. Basic information on severance after dismissal, amounts, and negotiation strategies can be found in our guide Severance Pay After Dismissal.
The amount of severance depends on the circumstances of the individual case. A rule of thumb is half a gross monthly salary per year of service, but this is only a rough guide. In a suspicion-based termination, the employer may hesitate to pay severance because they consider the suspicion justified. Conversely, the employee may push for higher severance if the dismissal appears disproportionate. More on negotiation strategy can be found in our article Conduct-Based Dismissal and Severance Pay.
Important: Severance is always a matter of negotiation. There is no statutory entitlement, except in the cases of Section 1a KSchG, where the employer offers severance in the dismissal letter. This scenario typically does not arise in a suspicion-based termination.
Litigation Risk and Costs: Who Helps with Financing?
A protection against dismissal action can become expensive. Attorney fees and court costs are based on the value in dispute, which in labor court proceedings often amounts to three gross monthly salaries. With a monthly salary of €5,000, the value in dispute is €15,000 – costs can quickly reach several thousand euros. Added to this is the risk of having to bear the opposing party’s costs in case of defeat.
Many employees shy away from this financial risk. However, there are ways to limit it. Legal aid can be applied for if income is below the garnishment exemption threshold. Alternatively, litigation funders offer to assume the cost risk and receive a share of any severance obtained in return. RechtStark is such a litigation funder that reviews the financing of protection against dismissal proceedings. It covers the costs for attorney and court if the prospects of success are good – you bear no risk of your own.
Before deciding on litigation funding, you should examine the offer carefully. Pay attention to the terms, the success fee, and whether the proceedings are also secured in the event of a loss. Independent legal advice from a certified specialist attorney is always the first step.
The case before the Düsseldorf Higher Labor Court illustrates how complex suspicion-based terminations are. Employees who find themselves in a similar situation should seek legal advice early and observe all deadlines. The chances of successfully challenging an unfounded suspicion-based termination are not poor – provided the formal requirements are met.
Note: This article is for general information purposes only and does not replace individual legal advice. For a free initial assessment of whether litigation funding may be an option for your case, you can contact RechtStark.