HGB §335c
Notifications to the Auditor Oversight Body
Mitteilungen an die Abschlussprüferaufsichtsstelle
The HGB provision requiring the Bundesamt für Justiz and public prosecutors to notify the Abschlussprüferaufsichtsstelle (APAS) of administrative fine decisions and criminal proceedings related to auditors.
1
Conceptual Framework Linkage
THE VERY LAST PROVISION OF BOOK 3, SECTION 2: after individual accounts, consolidated accounts, audit, disclosure, regulatory authorization, and the entire criminal/administrative/coercive-fine cluster, §335c closes the Section with a narrow but genuinely important information-sharing duty – ensuring APAS, the auditor oversight body, actually learns about the enforcement actions most relevant to its own supervisory function.
Ensuring the oversight body actually knows what it needs to know
Every enforcement mechanism this poster series has documented – administrative fines under §334, criminal proceedings under §§332/333/333a – risks operating in genuine isolation from APAS's OWN separate professional oversight function unless someone actively tells APAS what happened. §335c is that connective tissue: a narrow but necessary duty ensuring information flows to the body specifically responsible for auditor discipline.
HOW §335C MAPS TO GERMAN ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES
Coordinated, not siloed, enforcement – the SAME cross-regulatory information-flow theme already seen in §335(1d)'s own BaFin notification duty, now applied specifically to APAS Learning from institutional failure – see Section 8's honest historical context on why strengthened notification channels genuinely mattered
What §335c covers, at a glance
§Core content
335c(1)The Bundesamt für Justiz notifies APAS of all §334(2a) fine decisions
335c(2)Prosecutors notify APAS of concluded §§332/333/333a criminal proceedings, once formally charged
2
Scope – Two Distinct Notification Channels
Two different sources, one common destination
§335c establishes TWO genuinely separate information channels, both terminating at APAS: an ADMINISTRATIVE channel from the Bundesamt für Justiz (covering audit-committee-related §334(2a) fine decisions, established in the earlier §334 poster), and a CRIMINAL channel from the Staatsanwaltschaft (public prosecutors, covering concluded proceedings under §§332, 333, or 333a – the auditor accuracy, confidentiality, and audit-committee bribery/persistence offences this series has documented in detail).
3
§335c(1) – the Bundesamt's Own Notification Duty
Every §334(2a) fine decision, transmitted automatically
§335c(1) requires the Bundesamt für Justiz to transmit to APAS (housed at the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle, BAFA – Section 7) ALL Bußgeldentscheidungen (administrative fine decisions) issued under §334(2a) – the audit-committee independence-monitoring and selection-process failures established in the earlier §334 poster. This is a genuinely COMPREHENSIVE duty: EVERY such decision, without exception or threshold, must reach APAS.
4
Worked Example – an Automatic Notification Following a §334(2a) Fine
The oversight body learns of every relevant fine, without needing to ask
Example 1: An audit committee's flawed selection process, notified onward
Recall the audit committee's flawed selection-process scenario from the earlier §334 poster – the Bundesamt imposes an administrative fine under §334(2a) against the relevant committee members.
The Bundesamt AUTOMATICALLY transmits this fine decision to APAS under §335c(1) – APAS, whose own core supervisory mandate covers auditor independence and selection-process integrity at public-interest entities, learns of this SPECIFIC failure without needing to separately investigate or request the information itself.
5
§335c(2) – the Prosecutor's Own Notification Duty
Only once formal charges are actually filed
§335c(2) requires the Staatsanwaltschaft, in criminal proceedings concerning an offence under §§332, 333, or 333a, to transmit the PROCEEDING-CONCLUDING decision to APAS – but ONLY where public charges (öffentliche Klage) were actually filed, NOT merely where an investigation was opened and subsequently dropped without ever reaching formal prosecution. This is a genuinely narrower trigger than §335c(1)'s comprehensive administrative-fine notification duty.
6
Worked Example – Notification Including a Pending Appeal
The notification travels WITH the case, not just its final outcome
Example 2: An auditor's §332 conviction, still under appeal
An auditor is criminally convicted under §332 (established in the earlier Audit poster) for issuing an incorrect Bestätigungsvermerk for a PIE client, following formally filed public charges. The auditor files an appeal against the conviction.
The prosecutor transmits the proceeding-concluding decision to APAS under §335c(2) – but must ALSO specifically flag that an appeal (Rechtsmittel) has been lodged against it. APAS therefore receives a genuinely COMPLETE, current picture – not simply a final outcome that might later be overturned without APAS's own knowledge.
7
Where APAS Actually Sits – Within BAFA, Not Fully Standalone
A specialised oversight unit housed within a larger federal agency
A CLARIFICATION WORTH MAKING EXPLICIT: APAS (auditor professional discipline) is a genuinely DIFFERENT body from the Deutsche Prüfstelle für Rechnungslegung (DPR) – the separate, PIE-financial-statement review body that operated 2005–2021 and was abolished OUTRIGHT (not renumbered or renamed) by the same 2021 FISG reform, with BaFin taking over its function directly under a single-tier system. APAS itself was NOT affected by that specific change and continues operating as described below.
The Abschlussprüferaufsichtsstelle (APAS) is not a fully freestanding federal agency of its own – it is INSTITUTIONALLY housed at the Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle (BAFA), operating with genuine independence from the audit PROFESSION itself, though administratively situated within this broader agency. APAS was established by the 2016 Abschlussprüferaufsichtsreformgesetz (APAReG) – the SAME 2016 EU Audit Reform implementation wave that also gave this series §333a – replacing an earlier, less independent predecessor body (the Abschlussprüferaufsichtskommission, APAK).
8
An Honest Historical Note – APAS's Own Wirecard-Era Criticism
Context worth naming honestly, given how much this series has documented the post-Wirecard reforms
This poster series has repeatedly traced the 2021 FISG reform – §316a's PIE definition, §323's tiered liability caps, §331a's standalone Bilanzeid offence – back to the Wirecard scandal. Worth naming honestly here too: APAS itself faced public criticism in connection with that same episode, for reportedly not acting on indications of concern that had already surfaced by early 2019, before the scandal fully broke. This context helps explain WHY strengthening notification channels TO APAS – ensuring it actually receives the enforcement information relevant to its own supervisory function – was considered a genuinely necessary part of the broader post-Wirecard reform effort, rather than a purely bureaucratic addition.
9
Critical Judgments & Practical Difficulties
Where judgement matters most
SIGNIFICANT JUDGEMENTS
Determining precisely when "Erhebung der öffentlichen Klage" (the filing of public charges) has genuinely occurred, triggering §335c(2)'s notification duty
PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES
Ensuring APAS's own subsequent use of notified information remains appropriately coordinated with, rather than duplicative of, the underlying criminal or administrative proceeding itself
10
Relationship to IFRS
Inter-agency information sharing sits entirely outside any accounting standard
Precisely as with every other provision in this cluster, IFRS has no equivalent – how a jurisdiction's own regulatory bodies share information with each other is purely a domestic institutional-design question. §335c closes this poster series' documentation of the FULL enforcement architecture standing behind German financial reporting – a structure IFRS itself simply presupposes exists somewhere, without ever needing to specify how.
11
Statement Mapping
Where every §335c event lands
Event / obligationDocument affectedNotes
§334(2a) fine notification–Automatic, comprehensive, no threshold
§§332/333/333a criminal notification–Only once public charges are actually filed
12
Related Provisions – Cross-Reference Map
How §335c connects across HGB Book 3 – and closes the entire Section
ProvisionNature of the connection
§334(2a)The administrative fine decisions §335c(1) requires notified
§§332, 333, 333aThe criminal offences §335c(2) requires notified upon formal prosecution
§335(1d)The parallel BaFin notification mechanism this provision closely mirrors, for a genuinely different regulator
§316aDefines the PIEs whose audits fall most directly within APAS's own core supervisory mandate
With §335c, this poster series has now completed the ENTIRETY of HGB Book 3, Section 2 – Supplementary Provisions for Corporations – spanning individual accounts, consolidated accounts, audit, disclosure, regulatory authorization, and the complete criminal/administrative/coercive-fine architecture, from §264 through this final provision. The next poster moves to Section 3: Supplementary Provisions for Registered Cooperatives.
13
Quick-Reference Glossary
APAS
Abschlussprüferaufsichtsstelle – the auditor oversight body, housed within BAFA, established by the 2016 APAReG.
BAFA
Bundesamt für Wirtschaft und Ausfuhrkontrolle – the federal agency within which APAS is institutionally housed.
Staatsanwaltschaft
Public prosecutor's office – the source of the §335c(2) criminal-proceeding notification duty.
Erhebung der öffentlichen Klage
The filing of public charges – the trigger threshold for §335c(2)'s notification duty, distinct from a mere dropped investigation.
APAReG
Abschlussprüferaufsichtsreformgesetz – the 2016 reform establishing APAS, replacing the earlier, less independent APAK.