Exclusive: Certainty from "Claim" – Federal Government confirms deductions for pensioners in Russia

A discrepancy has arisen regarding pension payments for Germans living in Russia, specifically concerning fees withheld from accounts held in Russian Raiffeisen banks. An addendum published by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) on October 14 stated that fees are withheld from pension payments to Russian accounts. This contradicts a previous statement made by the Ministry in October regarding unchanged pension payouts. The core issue involves a flat fee of 200 euros retained by Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) in Vienna, acting as a correspondent bank facilitator, for each payment, regardless of the pension amount, which is justified by checks against money laundering and sanctions evasion.
The inquiry stems from information provided by journalist Ulrich Heyden regarding pension deductions since June. The Ministry’s subsequent clarification raised questions about the basis for "intensive efforts" to avoid these fees, as no other payment routes were reportedly found. A proposal made by the RBI suggested using the "OUR" option instead of "SHA" for transfers, which would shift the fee burden but not eliminate it. However, this potential mitigation is excluded in the addendum. The legal framework governing pension transfers allows free transfer to EU banks under SEPA regulations, yet uncertainty remains about which financial institution ultimately bears the correspondent bank fees and whether the pension insurance covers these costs.

* Germans receiving statutory pensions to Russian accounts in Russian Raiffeisen banks are missing 200 euros monthly since June.
* The money travels via Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) in Vienna, which acts as a correspondent bank facilitator for international payments.
* RBI retains a flat fee of 200 euros per payment, regardless of the pension amount.
* The Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) added information on October 14 stating that fees are withheld from pension payments to accounts in Russia.
* The Federal Government’s position was based on the pension service of the German Post paying pensions for the German Pension Insurance (DRV).
* The Ministry stated it could not explain the claim in writing on October 1, implying pensions would be paid out unchanged.
* A subsequent statement indicated no additional information was available to add to the previous answer.
* The legal framework allows free transfer for accounts with banks in the EU under SEPA regulations.
* The addendum equated the scope of regulation with the "SEPA area," which includes non-EU states like Switzerland or the United Kingdom, and only covers EU/EEA banks.
* Average pension received by Germans in Russia is 514.05 euros; after deduction, this leaves approximately 314 euros.

The narrative pivots on a deliberate obfuscation of responsibility concerning international payment structures and regulatory boundaries. The move to frame the issue around "intensive efforts" suggests an attempt to shift accountability away from a known systemic issue toward an action-based narrative. The introduction of concepts like "increased compliance risks" without referencing the stated risk context—such as EU sanctions, which RBI had previously alluded to regarding Russia's status—creates an informational vacuum that favors the state's position.
The internal conflict between the legal framework concerning free transfers and the practical reality of correspondent bank fees exposes a systemic gap between law and implementation. The exclusion of mechanisms like the "OUR" instruction demonstrates an attempt to narrowly define responsibility, effectively sidestepping a potential cost-shifting solution rather than addressing the fundamental entitlement issue. Furthermore, the contrast between the RBI's prior statements about sanctions risk and the subsequent justification of fees through general compliance language signals an effort to manage perception rather than provide transparent legal grounding. The pattern reveals a strategic deployment of ambiguity (ARC-0024) and deflection (ARC-0033) to maintain control over an outcome where cost asymmetry is at play, raising profound questions about which party truly bears the burden of this financial discrepancy.
Bridge Questions: If the legal text mandates free transfer, what specific mechanism or regulatory framework does the Ministry rely on to justify imposing correspondent bank fees, and how can independent verification confirm that these fees are legally permissible under SEPA obligations? What is the political cost to the pensioners when systemic procedural failures result in substantial, uncompensated financial loss? What are the long-term implications for trust when official bodies selectively withhold necessary contextual information regarding international finance and social welfare entitlements?