Buying land and paying part in cash normal?

Do you have any of this in writing? Of course, this is "thin ice," but one could, although I would definitely not do this in writing, point out that this could be passed on. If she acts stupidly towards you, one could also retaliate if one had something in hand.

Otherwise, it will probably be difficult, as she is unlikely to back down.

Of course, you’re treading on "thin ice" with this, but one could, though I definitely wouldn’t do this in writing, point out that it could be passed on. If she gives you a hard time, and if you had something on her, you could strike back.

Nonsense. You have nothing, and responding to bad behavior with bad behavior is not a solution. In general: The structure proposed by the lady makes you co-prisoners of tax evasion. You couldn’t hang her without hanging yourselves.

Move on, case closed. You shouldn’t put up with such crap.

No one will come after her for past actions because potential buyers of previous actions won’t say anything for the reasons mentioned above. Threats are therefore pretty empty.

Sure, she’s putting pressure now. She probably doesn’t have that many customers willing to support her "business model."

Just make it clear to her that this would constitute tax evasion for both parties and that you won’t go along with it.

the sale would be from a private seller. Well, I do think the lady knows about it since she professionally buys, renovates, and sells houses and plots of land.

Then let's believe that this particular property is being sold privately. Okay, the presumed full knowledge of the actions makes the matter even worse in my opinion.

The buyer "saves" notary fees and property transfer tax in this variant. So not just assistance, but possibly also their own tax evasion.

Right, I had spontaneously forgotten that!

Check it off, case closed. You shouldn't get involved in such crap.

+1

The common saying goes: Who lies once is not believed. I mean, anyone involved in such crooked dealings doesn't take things seriously otherwise either. I would neither buy a (used) car nor a property from this seller, whether cash or non-cash, no matter what.

The "sham transaction" (purchase at 100) would be void anyway according to § 117 I Baugesetzbuch.

The actually "intended" legal transaction (purchase at 200) would only be effective (§ 117 II Baugesetzbuch) if its validity requirements are met, especially regarding the form, here thus the notarization of all facts is maintained. The intended transaction would be formally void without notarization (§ 311 b Baugesetzbuch), as it is not notarized.

However, it is — exceptionally and only for reasons of legal certainty; otherwise the principle would be a new transaction (§ 141 I Baugesetzbuch) — curable, § 312 b I 2 Baugesetzbuch, namely through conveyance and entry in the land register.

It remains a tax offense.

I thank you for your help. We were really skeptical but thanks to you we are now sure that we will not buy it!!! Thank you

Acquaintances sold a property to neighbors in a similar way 25 years ago. However, the remaining money was supposed to be handed over in cash at a meeting the next day. This did not happen. The buyer said in surprise when asked: "Why should I still owe you money? We have already settled everything through the notary." The two families have been sworn enemies to this day.