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

This turnaround comes without a word of correction. In an addendum of October 14, the Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) writes: "Upon knowledge of the Federal Government, it is true that fees are withheld from pension payments to accounts in Russia." The Ministry calls this "supplementary information." In substance, it contradicts its own answer from the beginning of October. What it is about: Germans living in Russia who receive their statutory pension to an account in a Russian Raiffeisen bank are missing 200 euros every month since June. The money travels via Raiffeisen Bank International (RBI) in Vienna, the parent company. It is involved as a so-called correspondent bank, i.e., as a facilitator in international payments. For each payment, it retains a flat fee of 200 euros, regardless of the pension amount. This is justified by checks for money laundering and sanctions evasion. Excerpt from the Ministry of Labour's submission: "Upon knowledge of the Federal Government, it is true that..." © OAZ This newspaper asked this during the government press conference on September 28. On October 1, the BMAS replied in writing that it could "not explain the aforementioned claim," as the pensions would be "paid out unchanged." On October 5, this newspaper asked whether the Ministry disputed the deduction or merely claimed non-responsibility. Spokeswoman Katharina Schuler replied: "I have nothing to add to this answer." A week later, the Ministry has now added something, and that is "after further clarification." "Intensive efforts" – since when? This clarification raises questions. The Federal Government bases its position entirely on the pension service of the German Post, which pays the pensions for the German Pension Insurance (DRV). According to this, "despite intensive efforts," no other payment routes have been found with the involved correspondent banks to avoid the fees. Whoever makes intensive efforts must know the problem. How does this fit with the "claim" from October 1? Three explanations are possible. Either the Ministry did not know what was happening with the pension insurance provider. Or it replied without asking there. Or the efforts only began when the question was publicly asked. The addendum does not say when they began or what they consisted of. Above all, it bypasses a proposal by the RBI itself. The bank had recommended to the journalists and pensioners living in Moscow, Ulrich Heyden, whose case this newspaper reported on October 3, that payments should be ordered with the expense option "OUR" instead of "SHA". With "SHA," the fees of correspondent banks are deducted from the transferred amount. With "OUR," the sender bears them, so the recipient receives the full amount. This would not be in vain. At the end of 2025, the DRV had 1115 pensions for Germans residing in Russia. If all were reduced, it would amount to up to 223,000 euros per month that the pension insurance would have to cover. "OUR" therefore does not avoid the fee; it only shifts it. However, the pensioners would still be spared the deduction. This is exactly what the addendum excludes, without mentioning "OUR": the pension insurance or the pension service do not bear the fees of other correspondent banks. Exclusive: 200 Euros Less Pension for Germans in Russia Which Bank, Which Justification? It remains unclear who collects the fee. The addendum speaks of "accounts of the Austrian Raiffeisen Bank International AG in the Russian Federation." However, the Russian subsidiary holds the accounts in Russia. The RBI in Vienna only facilitates the payments as a correspondent bank. This is more than a formality: Pension law requires free transfer for accounts with banks in the EU. If the accounts are actually with the Austrian RBI AG, then no fee should be charged at all. What is also striking is what is missing in the justification. In relation to Heyden, the RBI had expressly stated that the EU classifies Russia as a high-risk country for money laundering. In the addendum, it is only about "increased compliance risks" and "manual interventions." The EU is not mentioned in this. The amount of the fee is also not mentioned in the addendum. On average, Germans in Russia receive 514.05 euros in pension. After the deduction, they are left with a good 314 euros, almost 39 percent less. Women receive an average of only 336.80 euros; they are missing almost 60 percent. "On behalf of another bank": With this letter, Raiffeisen Bank International Ulrich Heyden refused to provide information. Since June, he has been missing 200 euros in pension every month. © Ulrich Heyden Legally covered, politically unanswered The paragraphs to which the BMAS refers exist, and in essence, they say what the Ministry writes. Since January 2026, Paragraph 118 of the Sixth Social Code (SGB VI) regulates the payment of pensions itself. According to paragraph 2b, pensions are transferred free of charge to accounts with banks to which the European SEPA regulation applies. For all other payments, the service provider, in this case the pension insurance, bears the costs only "up to the financial institution to which it has ordered the payment," according to paragraph 2c. What is further incurred is paid by the pensioners. This is not new. The rule is almost word-for-word in paragraph 47 of the First Social Code, to which this newspaper had already referred on October 3. The legal part of the addendum could have been provided by the Ministry on October 1. In detail, the addendum is inaccurate. It equates the scope of the regulation with the "SEPA area." However, this also includes states like Switzerland or the United Kingdom, for which the regulation does not apply. It only covers banks in the EU and the European Economic Area. For the desire to switch to an account in another country, this is important: A right to free transfer only exists there. What remains open is which financial institution is commissioned with the payments to Russia. Until then, the pension insurance must bear the costs, but the addendum does not mention it. Nevertheless, the pension service has actively sought solutions with the correspondent banks. Without any influence on the payment route, the paying party is therefore apparently not. Whether the law prohibits it from bearing more costs, for example via an instruction with "OUR," neither the legal text nor the addendum say. And whether the legislator intended a flat rate that costs pensioners more than half of their pension on average is not a legal question but a political one. Two Ministries, One Question: Why are Germans in Russia missing 200 Euros in Pension Per Month? The Answer: An Account Elsewhere The answer remains with those affected. Those who want to avoid the fees can have their pension transferred to an account in another country, "if they meet the personal requirements for this and an account can be set up." The addendum does not explain what requirements are meant. According to the Payment Account Act, only consumers with legal residence in the EU have a right to a basic account. Those who live permanently in Russia should not have this right and are dependent on the goodwill of a bank. How difficult this can be is shown by Heyden's case. The Hamburger Sparkasse canceled his account in March after 36 years, referring to "EU sanctions." He reported his new account with an online bank in August. Nevertheless, the pension still went to Moscow, again reduced. Moreover, the online form for changing the account requires the IBAN of the previous bank, and Russian banks do not have one. Whether those affected were informed is not answered by the addendum. When almost 90 percent of pension payments to Russia were cut in 2022, the recipients still received a letter. One reason for this at that time was, among other things, the exclusion of Russian banks from the SWIFT payment network. This time, no such indication was found on the DRV website until the beginning of October. Meanwhile, the pension service had long been dealing with the problem, as it stated. And the Federal Foreign Office, whose consular officers are supposed to provide "assistance and assistance" to Germans abroad according to law? Its spokesman Josef Hinterseher was sure on September 28 that "we could provide you with an answer." A week later, his colleague Martin Giese explained that the office is not responsible for the payment of pensions to Russia. In the same exchange, he said: "I owe you nothing." What the message in Moscow advises those affected remains open to this day. The BMAS expressly refers to both press conferences in its addendum. It is not complete.