Bank investigation by the Belgian tax authorities: when may they request your bank statements?
- Aeacus Lawyers
- 2 days ago
- 16 min read
Quick answer The Belgian tax authorities may not obtain your bank statements directly from your bank without a legal basis. As a rule, the administration must first ask you to provide the account information yourself. A direct bank investigation is only possible if the statutory conditions are met, particularly where there are indications of tax evasion or where an assessment based on outward signs of wealth is being considered, and after the prescribed authorisation and notification procedure has been followed (Article 318, first paragraph, Article 322, § 2 and Article 333/1 of the Belgian Income Tax Code 1992, hereinafter “BITC 92”). Statutory exceptions, including certain international requests and situations in which the Treasury’s rights are at risk, must be assessed separately (Article 322, § 4 and Article 333/1 BITC 92). |
Imagine receiving a registered letter from the Belgian tax administration requesting all your bank statements for the past three years. Or, more seriously, discovering that your bank was contacted directly without your knowledge. Is the administration simply allowed to do that?
The answer is nuanced. Belgium has a form of fiscal banking secrecy, but it has been significantly weakened over the years. Since the Act of 14 April 2011, the tax administration has had broader powers to request banking information, both from taxpayers themselves and, subject to strict conditions, directly from financial institutions. The principal statutory basis is found in Articles 318 and 322 BITC 92.
A bank investigation by the tax authorities raises many practical and legal questions. This article explains when bank statements may be requested, which procedure must be followed, what rights taxpayers have and how they may defend themselves if the rules are not observed. Particular attention is also paid to crypto investors, for whom the evidentiary issues are often especially complex.
Table of contents
1. Why do the tax authorities request bank statements?
Bank statements are a particularly valuable audit tool. They allow the administration to reconstruct income that was not declared or was declared incompletely, compare substantial expenditure with declared income through an assessment based on signs and indications under Article 341 BITC 92, and identify foreign transfers or unexplained deposits.
Article 317 BITC 92 allows the administration to request information from the taxpayer concerning transactions in which the taxpayer participated. Article 318 BITC 92 creates an important restriction: as a rule, the administration is not authorised to obtain information from banks, foreign-exchange institutions, credit institutions or savings institutions for the purpose of taxing their clients. This is the Belgian concept of fiscal banking secrecy, albeit in a substantially weakened form.
Banking secrecy is not intended to protect fraud. Its purpose is to protect taxpayers’ privacy and prevent indiscriminate searches of bank accounts without a concrete reason. The law therefore establishes a stepped procedure: the taxpayer is questioned first, and the bank may only be contacted afterwards and under strict conditions.
2. When does this occur in practice?
In practice, a bank investigation is commonly considered in the following situations:
An unexplained discrepancy: the taxpayer’s expenditure or assets are inconsistent with the income declared, leading the administration to consider an assessment based on signs and indications under Article 341 BITC 92.
Indications of tax evasion: an audit reveals concrete facts suggesting that income was concealed, such as an undeclared foreign account, undeclared work, false invoices or a marked discrepancy between the taxpayer’s lifestyle and declared income.
Information from criminal proceedings: information obtained in a judicial investigation may prompt a bank investigation. The administration may rely on information it did not obtain through its own investigation.
International exchange of information: a foreign tax authority requests information concerning a Belgian account. Such a request is treated by law as an indication of tax evasion.
A report from the Belgian Financial Intelligence Processing Unit (CTIF-CFI): where its analysis reveals serious indications of laundering proceeds from serious tax fraud, relevant information may reach the tax administration and prompt further investigation. The CTIF-CFI also has direct access to the Central Point of Contact at the National Bank of Belgium, where financial account information is registered.
The administration may not conduct a “fishing expedition”. A request for information must concern identifiable persons and transactions. General and anonymous searches are excluded.
3. Bank investigations by the tax authorities: legal framework
I. Article 322 BITC 92
Article 322, § 2 BITC 92 is the central provision governing bank investigations in direct tax matters. Where the administration possesses one or more indications of tax evasion, or intends to determine the taxable basis on the basis of signs and indications under Article 341 BITC 92, a bank, foreign-exchange institution, credit institution or savings institution may be treated as a third party to which the ordinary information-gathering powers of Article 322, § 1 apply.
Article 322, § 3 BITC 92 also requires financial institutions to report account information, including account numbers, the identity of account holders and balances, to the Central Point of Contact (“CPC”) at the National Bank of Belgium. The administration may consult the CPC where indications of tax evasion have been established. Since the Programme Act of 20 December 2020, periodic balances of bank and payment accounts must also be reported.
Article 322, § 4 BITC 92 provides that a request from a foreign state may also justify a bank investigation. Such a request is automatically treated as an indication of tax evasion.
II. Evolution of the rules
Until 1 July 2011, Belgian fiscal banking secrecy was almost impenetrable for direct tax purposes. It could only be lifted where the administration’s investigation at the bank revealed facts suggesting the existence or preparation of a tax-evasion mechanism involving the bank. In practice, that route was rarely used.
The Act of 14 April 2011 introduced a fundamental relaxation by adding two gateways: the preparation of an assessment based on signs and indications, and the existence of indications of tax evasion. The powers were later expanded further, including by the Act of 30 June 2017 and the Programme Act of 20 December 2020.
III. Purpose of the rules
The rules seek to enable effective action against tax fraud while protecting taxpayers’ privacy under Article 8 ECHR and Article 22 of the Belgian Constitution through procedural safeguards. The Belgian Constitutional Court has largely upheld the system, notably because the notification requirement provides an important safeguard.
3.1. Six key conditions for a lawful bank investigation
Statutory gateway. There must be one or more indications of tax evasion, or the administration must be considering an assessment based on signs and indications.
Prior request to the taxpayer. As a rule, the taxpayer must first be given an opportunity to provide the banking information personally.
Expiry of the response period. The statutory response period must have expired before the bank investigation begins, unless a specific exception applies.
Suspected withholding or refusal. The competent official must be able to establish that the taxpayer is probably withholding the information or refusing to provide it.
Formal authorisation and notification. The legally required authorisation must be obtained and, when the bank
is contacted, the taxpayer must generally receive simultaneous notification of the relevant indications or facts.
Relevance and proportionality. The requested information must be useful for the correct determination of tax and may not go beyond what is necessary for the specific investigation.
4. May the tax authorities simply request your bank statements?
I. General rule
No. Under Article 318, first paragraph BITC 92, the administration is generally not authorised to obtain information from financial institutions for the purpose of taxing their clients. This prohibition remains the starting point. Banking secrecy may only be lifted under the conditions and through the procedure laid down by law.
II. Exceptions
The fiscal banking secrecy may be lifted where:
the administration possesses one or more indications of tax evasion; or
the administration intends to determine the taxable basis through signs and indications under Article 341 BITC 92.
In both situations, the stepped procedure of Article 322, § 2 BITC 92 applies.
III. Request to the taxpayer versus request to the bank
The administration must normally first send the taxpayer a written request for information under Article 316 BITC 92. It may approach the bank directly only if the taxpayer is suspected of withholding or refusing the information and the other statutory conditions are met. Departure from this approach is only possible in expressly regulated situations, including certain requests from a foreign state.
5. When may the tax authorities open a bank investigation?
I. Indications of tax evasion
The law requires indications of tax evasion, but not proof that evasion has already occurred. At this stage, the administration need not prove the infringement. It must nevertheless identify concrete and sufficiently precise indications from which an intentional tax infringement may reasonably be suspected. Vague assumptions are insufficient.
II. Examples of concrete indications
holding an undeclared foreign bank account;
a significant discrepancy between outward signs of wealth and declared income for which no convincing explanation is provided;
information showing that income was not declared;
undeclared work, false invoices or tax benefits claimed for work that was not performed.
By contrast, clerical errors concerning deductible expenses, a late return or a reasonable but incorrect
legal interpretation of professional expenses will not automatically constitute indications of tax evasion.
III. Mandatory reasoning
The administration must record in writing the indications of tax evasion on which it relies. Without that written record, the bank investigation is unlawful. The use of an online application to consult the CPC does not relieve the administration of its duty to demonstrate that the substantive conditions were satisfied.
6. Which procedure must the tax authorities follow?
I. Prior request for information
Before conducting a bank investigation, the administration must normally first address a request for information to the taxpayer under Article 316 BITC 92. The request must state that a bank investigation may follow if the taxpayer does not provide adequate cooperation. Form 332 is used for this purpose.
II. Time limit
The taxpayer has one month to respond, calculated from the third working day following dispatch of the request. That period may be extended for legitimate reasons.
The bank investigation may only begin after the response period has expired. An incomplete or ambiguous answer may be treated as a refusal to answer.
III. Decision to open the investigation
The authorisation must be granted by an official holding at least the rank of director and designated by the Minister of Finance.
The director must establish that the investigation revealed indications of tax evasion or facts supporting an assessment based
on signs and indications, and that there are reasons to believe the taxpayer is withholding or refusing the requested information.
The investigation itself is conducted by an official holding at least the rank of inspector, subject to the specific rules for CPC consultation.
IV. Notification of the taxpayer
When the request is sent to the bank, the administration must generally inform the taxpayer simultaneously by registered letter of the indications of tax evasion or facts justifying an assessment based on signs and indications (Article 333/1 BITC 92).
If the Treasury’s rights are at risk, notification may exceptionally be sent afterwards, no later than thirty days after the request to the bank. The Constitutional Court has clarified that this exception is justified where there are indications that the taxpayer intends to render themselves insolvent.
Different rules apply to requests from a foreign state: notification is given afterwards, no later than ninety days after the information has been transmitted to that foreign state.
7. Which information may be requested?
The information must be useful for determining taxable income and the request must be targeted. Transactions belonging exclusively to the private sphere and having no fiscal relevance may not be requested indiscriminately.
Once the procedure has been correctly followed, the administration may request, among other things:
account numbers and identification details through the CPC;
account balances, including periodic balances reported since 2022;
bank statements for non-time-barred periods;
historic account transactions;
credit-card information insofar as it is fiscally relevant; and
information on securities accounts and financial contracts reported to the CPC.
The applicable investigation period depends on the circumstances: generally three, four or seven years depending on the filing position and any fraud. Special periods, including those triggered by foreign information under Article 358 BITC 92, must be assessed separately.
8. Practical examples
Example 1 – sale of a property. Following the sale of a property, EUR 650,000 is credited to an account. The amount alone does not prove tax evasion. The notarial statement, deed of sale and bank reference can usually document the source of funds. A bank investigation must still satisfy the statutory conditions.
Example 2 – repeated cash deposits. Over several months, repeated cash deposits of EUR 20,000 are made without a consistent explanation or supporting documents. Together with other information, this may constitute a concrete indication justifying further questions and possibly a bank investigation. The administration must nevertheless identify the relevant indications and follow the stepped procedure.
Example 3 – repatriation of crypto proceeds. An investor receives EUR 1.2 million from a foreign crypto exchange. The transfer makes an investigation into the source and tax treatment understandable, but it does not in itself prove that EUR 1.2 million of taxable profit was realised. Acquisition costs, internal wallet transfers, earlier sales, expenses and the overall investment context must be reconstructed separately.
Practical observation. In our experience, a substantial bank deposit is sometimes too quickly equated with undeclared income. That is legally and financially incorrect. The source of funds, gross cash flow, actual capital gain and tax classification are separate issues. A large deposit is a fact to be investigated, not independent proof of an equally large taxable profit. |
9. May the tax authorities investigate all bank accounts?
I. Belgian accounts
Belgian accounts are subject to the stepped procedure under Article 322, § 2 BITC 92 and all the accompanying conditions and safeguards.
II. Foreign accounts
Article 322, § 5 BITC 92 allows the administration to obtain information concerning a taxpayer’s foreign accounts through the CPC where indications of tax evasion have been established or an assessment based on signs and indications is being considered. Belgian residents must also disclose foreign accounts in their income tax return and report them to the CPC. The mere existence of an undeclared foreign account may itself constitute an indication of tax evasion.
Through the Common Reporting Standard and international exchange of information, Belgium also automatically receives information concerning foreign accounts held by Belgian residents.
III. Joint and third-party accounts
The administration may ask questions about accounts available to the taxpayer, including accounts over which the taxpayer holds a power of attorney. Accounts belonging to unrelated third parties are more difficult to include in an investigation. A spouse’s or third party’s account may nevertheless be investigated where concrete indications show that it is relevant to the taxpayer’s fiscal position.
IV. Procedural points
The Article 322, § 2 procedure is strict. A defect may affect the lawfulness of the bank investigation or the use of the information obtained, but does not automatically invalidate the tax assessment. The consequences depend on the rule breached, the link between the defect and the evidence, and the Belgian fiscal Antigoon test. A key point remains that the information must generally first be requested from the taxpayer, subject to statutory exceptions.
V. Crypto accounts
The same principles apply to accounts connected with crypto exchanges and other service providers, subject to the specific reporting and evidentiary issues discussed throughout this article.
10. Taxpayer rights
I. Right to reasons
The taxpayer is entitled to receive notice of the indications of tax evasion relied upon under Article 333/1 BITC 92. The notice must identify concrete indications. A bare statement that an assessment based on signs and indications is being considered is insufficient.
II. Access to the administrative file
The taxpayer may request access to the administrative file. The timing and scope depend on the stage of the procedure and the applicable rules on public access to administrative documents. Requests, replies and correspondence involving foreign authorities may temporarily be withheld under Article 337/1 BITC 92 while the foreign investigation remains pending and disclosure could prejudice it. During the objection stage, the reviewing official has broad investigative powers under Article 374 BITC 92.
III. Opportunity to cooperate
The taxpayer must normally be given a genuine opportunity to cooperate and provide the requested banking information before the bank is approached.
IV. Assistance by a lawyer
The taxpayer may be assisted by counsel. The privilege against self-incrimination may be invoked where criminal prosecution can reasonably be anticipated. The right is not absolute and does not generally remove the duty to produce pre-existing documents sought solely for tax-assessment purposes.
V. Privacy
The Constitutional Court has held that the notification requirement provides important safeguards for private life under Article 8 ECHR. The administration may not indiscriminately request sensitive personal data lacking fiscal relevance.
11. What happens if you refuse?
I. Penalties
Failure to provide requested information, providing incomplete information or submitting inaccurate information may result in an administrative fine under Article 445 BITC 92. Where fraudulent intent exists, criminal penalties under Article 449 may also be possible.
II. Ex officio assessment
Refusal to cooperate may lead to an ex officio assessment, under which the administration determines the taxable basis unilaterally. In principle, the relevant refusal must come from the taxpayer or an authorised representative.
A refusal by an employee or family member without authority does not by itself justify a valid ex officio assessment. Refusal to cooperate with an investigation concerning an assessment based on signs and indications does not, on its own, constitute an indication of fraud.
III. Evidentiary consequences
Even where banking information was obtained unlawfully, it is not automatically excluded. Belgian courts apply the fiscal Antigoon doctrine.
Unlawfully obtained evidence may be used unless a formal requirement prescribed on pain of nullity was breached, the manner in which the evidence was
obtained is fundamentally incompatible with what may be expected from a
properly acting authority, or its use would undermine the right to a fair trial.
The court must assess the nature, seriousness and impact of the irregularity.
12. How can you defend yourself?
I. Procedural defects
The Article 322, § 2 procedure is strict. A procedural defect may affect the lawfulness of the investigation or use of the information. Not every defect automatically invalidates the assessment. The consequences depend on the breached rule, the seriousness of the error, the surrounding circumstances and the fiscal Antigoon test confirmed by the Court of Cassation on 22 May 2015.
II. Insufficient indications
The taxpayer may challenge whether the alleged indications of tax evasion are sufficiently concrete. Vague or generic allegations are insufficient. The Antwerp Court of First Instance has held that a general reference to undeclared work without a connection to the specific file could not justify a bank investigation.
III. Breach of Article 322 BITC 92
The lawfulness of a bank investigation may be challenged before the Court of First Instance, both before and after the assessment. In urgent proceedings, an order suspending or prohibiting the investigation may be sought where the legal conditions are met.
IV. Proportionality
A request for information must be proportionate. A request for all information from all personal accounts for an entire tax year, without identifying the transactions under investigation, may be impermissibly broad.
V. Relevant case law
Ghent Court of Appeal: a bank investigation conducted without sufficiently concrete indications may be unlawful, subject to the possible impact of the Antigoon test.
Liège Court of Appeal: breach of the notification period only invalidates an assessment where the assessment relied on information obtained in response to the request addressed to the financial institution.
Antwerp Court of First Instance: consultation of the CPC without an adequate written record of indications of fraud is unlawful.
Court of Cassation, 22 May 2015: unlawfully obtained evidence is not automatically excluded in tax proceedings.
13. Common errors in bank investigations
The alleged indications are vague, stereotyped or unrelated to the taxpayer concerned.
The request is so broad that it amounts to a fishing expedition and
fails to identify the period, account or transactions under investigation.
The taxpayer was not first given a genuine opportunity to answer, although no statutory exception applied.
The statutory response period had not expired or a reasoned extension request was not properly considered.
The required authorisation or written record of the statutory conditions cannot be found in the file.
The notice does not identify the concrete indications or was not sent at the required time.
The administration treats a gross account flow as taxable income without examining its source, acquisition cost and legal tax classification.
14. Checklist: review the tax authorities’ request
Does the request clearly identify the taxpayer, period, account and transaction under investigation?
Does it identify the statutory basis and, where required, the concrete indications of tax evasion or facts supporting an assessment based on signs and indications?
Were you first questioned and given the full statutory response period, unless a specific exception applies?
Is the requested information relevant and proportionate?
Does the file show that the competent official authorised the investigation?
Were you notified in time and with sufficient detail when the bank was contacted?
Can you document the source of significant deposits with contracts, deeds, exchange
statements, wallet addresses and a reconciliation between crypto and bank records?
Have any procedural objections been reserved promptly and in writing without unnecessarily delaying the substantive response?
15. Frequently asked questions
May the tax authorities go back ten years?
The ordinary investigation and assessment period is three years, calculated from 1 January of the assessment year. A four-year period applies in cases of non-filing, late filing or certain complex returns.
For infringements committed with fraudulent intent or intent to cause harm, an autonomous seven-year period applies under Article 354, § 2 BITC 92. The Act of 18 December 2025 reversed the earlier ten-year fraud period retroactively from assessment year 2023.
Must I provide my bank statements myself?
In principle, yes, if the administration lawfully requests them. The stepped procedure normally gives you the first opportunity to provide the relevant information. The bank may only be approached directly where withholding or refusal is suspected and the other statutory conditions have been met, subject to specific exceptions.
May the tax authorities investigate my spouse?
Yes, but restrictions apply to third-party accounts, including a spouse’s account. An unrelated private account is more difficult to include, but may be investigated where concrete indications demonstrate its relevance to the taxpayer’s fiscal position.
May the tax authorities obtain information about my foreign account?
Yes. Article 322, § 5 BITC 92 allows certain information concerning foreign accounts to be obtained through the CPC. Belgian residents must also declare their foreign accounts and report them to the CPC. Foreign authorities exchange account information automatically under the Common Reporting Standard.
Can crypto profits be inferred from my bank account?
Indirectly, yes. When crypto proceeds are converted into euros and transferred to a bank account, the deposits become visible. A substantial unexplained amount may constitute an indication of tax evasion or prompt an assessment based on signs and indications. The administration may also use blockchain analysis and information from exchanges. A bank deposit, however, is not automatically equal to taxable profit.
16. Conclusion
A fiscal bank investigation is an intrusive but legally limited investigative power. Belgian fiscal banking secrecy has been weakened, not abolished. The administration must have a statutory gateway, respect the stepped procedure, obtain the required authorisation and notify the taxpayer in accordance with the law.
An effective defence therefore requires two parallel analyses. Procedurally, the indications, time limits, authorisation, notification and proportionality must be reviewed. Substantively, each significant bank flow must be reconciled with its true source and tax treatment. A procedural error does not automatically lead to exclusion of evidence, but may be decisive depending on its nature and impact under the fiscal Antigoon test.
For crypto investors, this dual approach is essential. DAC8, CARF, CRS and blockchain analysis make more information visible, but a visible transaction is not proof of a taxable capital gain. A complete source-of-funds file, wallet mapping and transaction reconciliation can distinguish gross flows, internal transfers, invested capital and actually realised results.
Timely legal analysis is therefore just as important as the substantive tax discussion. Have any request for banking information reviewed before the response period expires, so that cooperation, evidence gathering and procedural objections can be coordinated coherently.
About Aeacus
Aeacus is a leading Belgian law firm for tax proceedings. Our lawyers assist individuals, businesses and high-net-worth families on a daily basis during tax audits, notices of amendment, ex officio assessments, administrative objections and court proceedings.
Our added value lies in combining in-depth substantive tax expertise with extensive knowledge of tax procedure. A tax dispute is not only about how much tax is due, but also whether the administration complied with the statutory procedure, investigation periods, assessment periods and other procedural safeguards.
Do you have questions about a bank investigation or require assistance during an ongoing tax audit? You are welcome to schedule a free and non-binding initial consultation to discuss your file and specific questions.
Christophe Romero Senne Verholle
