Vaccine damage after the Moderna vaccination

The following batch numbers of the Moderna vaccine are associated with recognized vaccine injuries:

Vaccine damage after the BioNTech vaccination

Batch numbers have also been identified in the BioNTech vaccines that are frequently associated with vaccine injuries:

Can you find your batch number in one of the lists above – or are you experiencing unexplained health problems after a Covid-19 vaccination? Then you should have your claims legally reviewed. Contact us now – we'll help you gain clarity and enforce your rights.

Der Beitrag Impfschäden nach Corona-Impfung: Besonders schadensträchtige Chargennummern erschien zuerst auf R&U.

On November 28, 2024, the Paul Ehrlich Institute (PEI) surprisingly published the Excel list of all suspected reports, which had previously been kept secret. This represents direct confirmation of the previously refuted theory that there is a significant batch-dependent risk of harm in the vaccines. The PEI had repeatedly claimed to the public and the press that no such differences were detectable in Germany, while neighboring countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and the Czech Republic had observed and confirmed exactly the opposite.

Only with the publication of the data on November 28, 2024, did it become apparent that the PEI had been aware of the batch-related damage for some time and had kept this information secret. The published data clearly shows that the 149 potentially damaging batches identified by the law firm Rogert & Ulbricht also fully match the damage reports listed by the PEI. These batches were reported a total of 235 times, but only 145 batches had a significant number of suspicious activity reports (over 40).

The law firm Rogert & Ulbricht had already correctly identified the top 10 most harmful batches of Comirnaty, well before the PEI. The PEI was aware of these findings and did not support the law firm in its efforts to inform the public, even though it was the PEI's responsibility to ensure proper drug oversight and to inform the public in a timely manner.

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich published the top 10 most damaging batches at the time, all except batch ER9480, which were affected by the following batches:

• EX8679 (1st vaccination, 1st place)
• FD7958 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 2nd place)
• FC3095 (1st vaccination, 8th place and 2nd vaccination, 4th place)
• EX3510 (1st vaccination, 7th place and 2nd vaccination, 23rd place)
• FE6975 (1st vaccination, 2nd place and 2nd vaccination, 1st place)
• EW8904 (1st vaccination, 4th place and 2nd vaccination, 39th place)
• ER9480 (1st vaccination, 28th place and 2nd vaccination, 33rd place)
• ET3045 (1st vaccination, 9th place and 2nd vaccination, 49th place)
• FD9234 (1st vaccination, 6th place and 2nd vaccination, 3rd place)
• EX3599 (1st vaccination, 3rd place and 2nd vaccination, 42nd place)

Although the Paul Ehrlich Institute was aware of the accuracy of this data, it did not support the law firm in its efforts to clarify the matter. However, it was the PEI's responsibility to oversee drug regulations and to inform the public promptly.

The PEI has now made the raw data from the safety reports from December 2020 to December 2023 publicly available.

Batch comparison: PEI reports vs. Rogert & Ulbrich

Questions from the law firm to the Paul Ehrlich Institute

1. Why did the PEI deceive the public about the significant differences in the harmfulness of the batches?
2. What was the cause of the extreme damage caused by the ten most problematic batches? Why wasn't this investigated?
3. Who was responsible for batch testing and why were the defects in these batches not detected during the PEI testing?
4. Who performed the plasmid testing of the batches?
5. Who was responsible for testing the batches for endotoxins?
6. Who checked the batches for SV40 Enhancer/Promoter and SV40 ori?
7. Why was no real-time monitoring of the batches carried out with regard to the suspected reports, as required by Section 13 Paragraph 5 Nos. 9 and 10 of the IfSG by the PEI?
8. Why was the public not warned about potentially harmful batches, and why were these batches not recalled by the PEI?
9. If there are over 10,000 damage reports for EX8679, why wasn't there an alert at the PEI?
10. How did the Paul Ehrlich Institute react to the devastating results from the manufacturer BioNTech?
11. Why did the technical supervision of the Federal Ministry of Health (BMG) not intervene?
12. Was the Federal Ministry of Health informed of the abuses? Did no one raise the alarm?
13. Was the EU Commission informed about the security-related aspects?
14. Why wasn't the production and distribution of the genetically engineered product stopped?
15. Why does the PEI claim that no DNA is contained in the vaccines without conducting its own sequencing?
16. Why did the PEI state that BioNTech tested the toxicity of the spike protein with huACE2 mice, even though BioNTech only used BALB/C mice?
17. Why did the PEI not publicly declare that Comirnaty was classified in the OEB5 class, i.e. as highly toxic from 1 microgram?
18. Why is the list submitted in such an unsorted manner?
19. Why is there a discrepancy between the processing number and the case number?
20. Why do the published data from the PEI differ significantly from the previously published figures?
21. Why is there no press conference to explain the key data?
22. Why didn't the PEI record the number of vials distributed in Germany per batch?
23. Since the same batches were also distributed in Austria and Turkey: What efforts did the PEI undertake to compare the data?
24. What measures has the PEI taken to determine the cause of the differences in the frequency of injuries?
25. When can the public expect an evaluation of the PEI's statutory health insurance data?

As of today, March 2026, these questions remain largely unanswered.

Der Beitrag PEI bestätigte erst Ende 2024 heimlich chargenabhängige Impfschäden und verstößt gegen Aufsichtspflichten erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Deceptively realistic online offers

Consumers are increasingly confronted with fake investment portals.
These sites use the names of real companies or deceptively similar internet addresses to build trust.
In the case of festgeldratgeber(.)de and perfektsparen(.)de, the name of Alpha Star Consult GmbH from Zurich was apparently misused to create the impression of a reputable partnership.

However, the operators of these pages do not have authorization to offer financial services or banking transactions in Germany.
Those who invest money there do so outside the regulated financial market – and therefore without legal protection through deposit insurance or supervision.

Why these cases are so dangerous

1. The appearance of seriousness

The websites are often elaborately designed, use familiar terms such as "fixed-term deposit" or "overnight deposit" and refer to well-known bank names.
This is precisely what makes them seem credible – and that is exactly what makes them dangerous.

2. Misuse of real company data

When real company identities are misused, many potential customers do not realize that they are dealing with fraudsters.
The combination of a real name and a fake platform is a common method to mislead investors.

3. No legal protection

Anyone who transfers money to unauthorized providers has no claim to deposit protection.
Claims for damages are also difficult to enforce, as those responsible often operate abroad or use false identities.

How to recognize dubious financial offers

Several characteristics indicate that an offer is not legitimate:

• Unusually high interest rates: Returns significantly above market levels are a classic warning signal.
• Lack of transparency: No complete legal notice, unclear contact persons, or registered office abroad.
• Pressure build-up: Prompts such as "Available today only" or "Limited spaces" are designed to encourage quick decisions.
• Unclear bank account details: Payments to private accounts or foreign IBANs without a verifiable connection.
• No proof of a permit: Only authorized banks and financial service providers are allowed to offer such products.

Therefore, before making any investment, it should be checked whether the provider has a Authorisation in accordance with Section 32 of the German Banking Act (KWG) has.
This can be done via the Company register of the financial supervisory authority research.

What you should do if you are affected

If you have already responded to one of these offers or transferred money, quick action is crucial:

1. Stop the transfer:
   Contact your bank immediately and check if a chargeback is possible.
2. Secure evidence:
   Save all emails, contracts, payment receipts and website screenshots.
3. To file charges:
   File a criminal complaint on suspicion of fraud and identity theft.
4. Protect your account and identity:
   Monitor your account activity and protect your personal data from further misuse.
5. Seek legal advice:
   A legal review can help clarify potential claims and limit damages.

Legal classification

Offering financial or banking services without the required license constitutes a violation of Section 32 of the German Banking Act (KWG).
Affected investors are not at fault in such cases, but are often legally unprotected.
In certain situations, intermediaries or payment service providers may be held liable – for example, if they acted with gross negligence or ignored warnings.

An individual legal review is essential here to determine whether claims exist. Repayment or compensation consist.

Conclusion

The case of the websites festgeldratgeber(.)de and perfektsparen(.)de shows how professionally fraudulent internet offers are now designed.
Behind reputable designs and attractive interest rates, there are often unauthorized providers who operate with false identities and deliberately deceive consumers.

Anyone investing money should never rely solely on outward appearances, but should first check the legal authorization and reliability of a provider.

Our law firm will gladly assist you if you:

• Having doubts about the legitimacy of a financial offer,
• have already transferred money to a questionable provider or
• wish to consider legal steps to limit the damage.

Der Beitrag Identitätsdiebstahl bei vermeintlichen Festgeldangeboten – Vorsicht vor festgeldratgeber(.)de und perfektsparen(.)de erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Fraud with alleged fixed-term deposit offers

In view of the increased interest rates, many people want to switch from safe Investments benefit. Fixed deposits and Call money are considered to be solid investments with manageable risk. It is precisely this desire that fraudsters exploit by claiming to be experts in brokering Fixed deposits They operate elaborately designed Web portals or appear as apparent Financial advisor which are particularly good Fixed-term deposit conditions offer.

The sites seem reputable, the interest rates seem to be lower compared to offers from real Banks attractive, but not unrealistic, giving the impression that it is a credible Fixed deposit offer. After contacting us, interested parties often receive documents that resemble the forms of real Banks look deceptively similar. Sometimes they are even redirected to fake online portals that look like the website of a partner bank.

After the alleged application, customers are asked to transfer the investment amount to an account with a foreign IBAN. The account actually exists, but is registered in the name of the fraudsters. The money is lost after the transfer. In some cases, fake account statements are sent to feign credibility. After this, at the very latest, all contact is lost. Emails remain unanswered, online access no longer works, and refunds are never made.

Protection through IBAN name matching

Since October 9, 2025 are all Banks obliged to check before a transfer whether the specified recipient name matches the name stored in the IBAN. This so-called IBAN name comparison is intended to prevent funds from flowing into the wrong accounts. Consumers now receive the results of this check before a payment is approved and can decide for themselves whether to proceed with the transaction.

This measure makes fraud more difficult, but it is no substitute for your own caution. As always, a thorough review of the provider is the best protection against dubious Fixed deposit offers and fraudulent brokers. Anyone who wants to invest their money safely should always check whether the advertised Fixed-term deposit investment actually have an approved bank running.

How to recognize fraudulent providers

Serious Fixed-term deposit providers and intermediaries have a license from the BaFin. Anyone who is not listed in the financial supervisory authority’s company list is not allowed to Investments If such an entry is missing, you should refrain from investing. You should be especially cautious if the business address is located abroad or if the imprint is incomplete or obviously false. Even elaborate websites with logos, seals, or awards are no guarantee of trustworthiness – they can easily be faked.

Another warning sign is when the alleged bank no thorough identification is required. Credit institutions always check the identity of their customers before making a Investment If this step is missing, suspicion is warranted.

Anyone looking for safe and reputable Fixed deposit offers should turn to well-known comparison portals such as Stiftung Warentest or established banks. These regularly publish current interest rate overviews and offer reliable guidance for safe Fixed-term deposits.

If you have already transferred money

If you have already transferred money to an account that later turns out to be fraudulent, you must act immediately. Contact your bank, to check whether the transfer can still be stopped. Also, file a police report and save all documents, emails, and messages related to the alleged Fixed-term deposit investment In many cases, the Consumer Advice Center or a lawyer can help you review the next steps and clarify whether a valid contract has even been concluded.

Conclusion: Safety comes before returns

Fixed deposits remains a popular and generally safe form of Investment, if they have a real bank or a licensed broker. However, criminals exploit the trust placed in this form of investment to obtain their victims' money using professional forgeries.

Therefore, do not rely on supposedly good Fixed-term deposit offers, but inform yourself thoroughly about the bank, the broker and the actual interest rates on the market. If a Investment sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Vigilance and information are the best protection against fraudulent Fixed-term deposit brokers.

Der Beitrag Warnung: Betrug mit Festgeld-Angeboten – So schützen Sie Ihre Geldanlage bei der Bank erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Current scams at Ledger & Ledger Live

1. Phishing emails / fake update requests

• Fake emails claiming to be from Ledger ask users to download a new version of Ledger Live or perform a “security update.”
• These messages often contain a button such as “Verify Now” or “Secure My Account,” which leads to a fake website where the 24-word phrase is then requested.
• Particularly dangerous: fake Ledger apps have been discovered on macOS that replace the real application and ask you to enter the phrase.
  

2. Physical mail (Ledger Letter Scam)

• Criminals send deceptively real letters to user addresses (some of which come from leaked data).
• The letter often contains QR codes or links to fake websites asking you to validate your wallet or perform security updates.
• Ledger itself confirms that they never Send letters with such requests.
  

3. Telephone calls / social engineering via hotline

• Victims receive calls claiming their Ledger account has been compromised. They are then asked to visit a website or enter their recovery phrase.
• Some cases report that details (name, email address) from data leaks have been used to inspire trust.
• Important: Ledger never calls users and will never ask for the recovery phrase.
  

4. Fake Ledger software / manipulated apps / malware

• Fraudsters offer a manipulated version of Ledger Live that appears legitimate but collects the seed phrase upon login.
• Browser plugins or external apps that mimic Ledger functionality are also in circulation.
• In some cases, malware is secretly installed on the computer and monitors actions in the background.
• A technically sophisticated variant: a manipulated hardware device (e.g., purchased, opened, or hardware components swapped) is resold as a genuine device. Thus, the creation of a seed on such a device is already compromised.
  

5. Address poisoning

• A more recent scam involves an attacker sending a small amount of cryptocurrency or NFT to a user's address. This so-called "poisoned address" can result in the next transaction automatically transmitting manipulated data or redirecting the user to a phishing website.
  

6. Clipboard manipulation (e.g. EthClipper attacks)

• A classic technique in which malware monitors the clipboard in the background and replaces the address with a manipulative one when copying crypto addresses. The user only notices a slight inaccuracy – and then unknowingly sends the message to the attacker.
  

7. Technical Support Scam / Fake Recovery Services

• Scammers offer repair or support services for wallet issues on social media or through advertisements. Users are redirected to a "support channel" where they systematically manipulate them into disclosing their keys or confirming transactions.
  

Legal perspective & options for victims

• File a criminal complaint: As soon as a loss occurs, a report should be filed with the police immediately, if possible with all evidence (email, letters, screenshots).
  
• Blockchain analysis / trace detection: With the help of on-chain analysis, it is often possible to trace where the stolen coins went.
  
• Civil law claims: In certain cases, it can be examined whether service providers, intermediaries or platforms can be held liable – for example, due to breaches of duty, incorrect security advice or culpable negligence.
  
• Immediate measures in case of suspicion:
  1 – Involve experts (IT forensics, crypto law)
  2 – No more access to compromised wallet / seed
  3 – Generate a new wallet with a fresh seed (offline)
  4 – Transfer any funds, if still available, immediately
  5 – Revoke access rights (dApp permissions)
  

Protective measures & best practices

• Buy Ledger devices only from the manufacturer or official resellers
• Firmware / software only from official sources / directly from Ledger
• Never enter the 24-word recovery phrase anywhere – only on the device itself
• Distrust of emails, calls or mail with urgent requests
• **Check domains carefully – look for minimal deviations (e.g. “legder”, “ledqer”) **
• Regular device checks / authenticity checks according to Ledger instructions
• Do not install third-party apps that imitate Ledger features
• Monitor clipboard / Use anti-malware
• Check permissions / smart contract authorizations and revoke them if necessary

Der Beitrag Achtung Ledger-Betrug: Aktuelle Angriffe & wie Sie Ihr Kryptoguthaben schützen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

We are here to help you with all questions about naturalization, residency rights, and the legal implications of the planned change in the law. Anyone currently planning to become a naturalized citizen after three years should seek advice in good time to meet deadlines and avoid potential disadvantages.

What exactly changes regarding naturalization?

The "supercharged naturalization" introduced in 2024, which allowed naturalization after just three years of residence, is about to be abolished. This regulation was aimed at particularly well-integrated individuals with German language skills at C1 level and active social engagement. The coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU, and SPD explicitly announces the abolition of "supercharged naturalization" for 2025.

Our immigration lawyers will assess whether accelerated naturalization is still possible and provide comprehensive advice on your options. Schedule a personal legal consultation now!

What remains in the naturalization law?

The reduction of the standard minimum residence period for naturalization from eight to five years, already introduced in 2024, remains unchanged. Dual citizenship will also continue to be possible and will remain the norm. According to the coalition agreement, other key components of the citizenship law reform will also be retained.

When will the abolition of turbo naturalization come into effect?

The coalition agreement between the CDU, CSU, and SPD initially represents a political declaration of intent and has no immediate legal effect. The planned abolition of naturalization after three years still has to be implemented through a legislative process in the Bundestag. Until then, the current regulation will remain in place. However, it is expected that the new government will soon present a draft bill amending citizenship law.

Act now: Naturalization after 3 years will soon be abolished

Anyone who currently meets all the requirements for naturalization after three years should consider whether a timely application makes sense. Due to the upcoming changes, it is advisable to seek advice from experienced immigration lawyers early on in order to meet deadlines and secure your chances of naturalization.

Our lawyers will assess your individual situation and show you how you can still benefit from "supercharged naturalization." Schedule a consultation now!

Der Beitrag Einbürgerung nach 3 Jahren: Geplante Abschaffung 2025 – Das sollten Betroffene wissen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Following the first delivery in 2023, the tax authorities in North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) again received structured user data from a German-based crypto platform in September 2025. These data sets contain information on account IDs, deposits and withdrawals, and movements between wallets. For the authorities, these are valuable pieces of the puzzle for identifying tax-relevant transactions. This is not an arbitrary search of all crypto accounts, but rather a request for information under the German Tax Code.

German tax rules for private crypto investors

The German tax regime is comparatively friendly for private investors: Anyone who holds crypto assets—whether currencies or other tokenized assets—for more than a year is generally exempt from taxation. There is also an exemption limit of €1,000 for private sales during the year.

Nevertheless, many investors run into trouble – often not out of malicious intent, but due to the underestimated complexity of the transactions. Coins change exchanges, are moved to hardware wallets, tokens are split, swapped, or loaned to protocols. The result: transaction chains that are almost impossible to reconstruct without proper documentation.

Special features of the attack

The attack was highly targetedThe attackers analyzed the victim's wallet structure in detail and tailored the attack precisely to their positions in the Venus Protocol. Evidence suggests that Deepfake videos were used to make fake identities appear credible.

Another feature: Despite using a Hardware wallet The attack was successful. The reason was the manipulation of the frontend, which caused the victim to sign correctly but unknowingly confirm a malicious transaction.

Specialized software for blockchain analysis

The tax authorities' analysis is no longer manual. Specialized software for blockchain analysis and AI-supported data processing clusters wallet movements, recognizes patterns, and links them with the KYC data collected by the platforms. Even peer-to-peer marketplaces, where not every counter-position is obvious, provide sufficient signals to filter out anomalies.

From 2026, new EU reporting requirements for crypto service providers will also standardize cross-border data flows.

Which transactions are interesting?

Tax authorities must weigh costs against benefits. Cases where the transaction volume is significant become particularly interesting. As a rule of thumb, the larger the flows, the higher the likelihood that an audit is worthwhile. Smaller investors aren't automatically off the hook, but realistically have a lower priority.

What is decisive is not just the absolute amount of profit, but often the sum of the movements and their structure: short holding times, frequent trades, transfers between many wallets and exchanges.

Test questions for crypto investors

Every investor should ask themselves the following questions:

• Holding periods: Have I held my crypto for more than a year? Can I document transfers between my wallets without a purchase or sale transaction?
• Prizes: What profits did I make in a calendar year? Losses from another year cannot be offset directly; they must be declared separately.
• Exemption limit: Am I exceeding the exemption limit of €1,000 per calendar year? This limit applies cumulatively, not per individual transaction.
• Completeness: Is it possible to compile a traceable transaction list for each tax year (deposits, withdrawals, purchases, sales, transfers, staking/lending/airdrops, etc.)?
• Plausibility: Does the chronological order make sense—especially for transfers between exchanges and wallets? Is there evidence of inventory, such as bank statements or platform exports?
• Consistency: Do statements, year-end balances, and declared profits/losses match, or are there unexplained gaps?

Transaction costs, splits, or defective exports are particularly critical. These require structured, traceable reports from available sources (exchange exports, wallet explorers, account statements, emails regarding deposits and withdrawals).

What should affected crypto investors do?

In cases of tax evasion, the tax office can make retroactive demands for up to ten years – in practice, this means that in 2025, offenses dating back to 2015 could still be affected.

Normally, the assessment period is four years (five years in the case of careless tax evasion), but in cases of suspected tax evasion, the ten-year period applies. In serious cases, criminal law threatens not only back payments but also severe penalties. Anyone who has not yet correctly declared the affected years should not underestimate the risk but should seek professional help immediately.

In this case, it is advisable to consult an experienced tax advisor and – if there are indications of criminal proceedings – a lawyer specialising in criminal tax law.

Der Beitrag Finanzamt prüft Krypto-Transaktionen: Was jetzt jeder Investor wissen muss erschien zuerst auf R&U.