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.

Cryptocurrencies are in the media every day – and scammers are exploiting this interest. Anyone who falls for a fake trading platform or a Romance Scam Those who have fallen victim to this scam often believe their money is irretrievably lost. This is not always the case. Whether and how much can be recovered depends heavily on the individual circumstances – but above all on how quickly the right steps are taken. Rogert & Ulbrich advises those affected by this scam. Crypto fraud and provides support in the legal enforcement of claims for reimbursement.

What is cryptocurrency fraud? Legal classification

Crypto fraud refers to any form of deception in which cryptocurrencies are used either as bait or as a means of payment. The spectrum ranges from fake trading platforms and fictitious coins to pyramid schemes and manipulated wallets. German law does not recognize a specific criminal offense of "crypto fraud." Legally, in most cases, it is considered classic fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB): deliberate deception that creates an error in the victim and leads to financial loss. Depending on the specific circumstances, other charges may include computer fraud under Section 263a StGB, investment fraud under Section 264a StGB, or money laundering.

This classification is important for those affected: it means that criminal prosecution is possible – and that civil claims for damages exist. The chances of success depend on where the perpetrators are located, which platform the payment was processed through, and whether regulated cryptocurrency exchanges were involved in the transaction. A general assessment is not possible. Anyone who acts rashly and without legal advice risks hindering later investigations or harming themselves.

An overview of the most common scams

The perpetrators' methods are varied and professional. Some scams are particularly common in practice:

• Pig Butchering (Romance Scam): Perpetrators build an emotional relationship over weeks or months – via dating apps, WhatsApp, or Instagram. The contact appears random. Once sufficient trust has been established, the victim is led to a fake trading platform. Initially, small profits are displayed, and even initial withdrawals are possible. Then the pressure to make ever-larger deposits increases – until all the capital is lost.
• Fake investment platforms: Professionally designed websites with genuine SSL certificates, fake regulatory information, and deceptively realistic dashboards simulate legitimate crypto brokers. Deposited funds go directly to the perpetrators. As soon as a withdrawal is requested, suddenly "taxes," "compliance fees," or "unlock amounts" are demanded—a classic advance-fee scam. Those who pay lose more.
• Pump & Dump: Organizers acquire a worthless token and drive up its price through coordinated advertising campaigns. Telegram, They artificially inflate the price of X or YouTube and then sell off the stock suddenly. The price collapses, leaving unsuspecting investors stuck with worthless tokens.
• Rug Pull: Developers of a seemingly innovative DeFi or NFT project suddenly withdraw all liquidity from the smart contract or exploit hidden administrative privileges. The project disappears overnight, and social media channels are deleted.
• Phishing and fake wallets: Fake emails, text messages, and websites imitate well-known platforms like Coinbase, Binance, or MetaMask. Victims are tricked into entering their login credentials or seed phrase. The wallet is emptied in seconds.
• Impersonation and celebrity fraud: Perpetrators create deceptively realistic copies of social media profiles of well-known personalities and promise returns or repayments in exchange for cryptocurrency transfers. Even authorities like BaFin are impersonated – for example, through forged letters designed to exert pressure.

All these scams have one thing in common: the perpetrators work professionally, operate internationally, and use money laundering structures to conceal the flow of funds. Anyone who feels pressured to deposit more money or is asked to pay a "fee" to unlock a withdrawal should immediately stop all further transactions and break off contact.

Immediate action: What is crucial after a fraud case

The first hours and days after a cryptocurrency scam are often crucial for subsequent legal action. The sooner action is taken, the greater the chance of tracing the flow of funds.

What should be done immediately:

• No further payments – regardless of the pretext. Even if pressure is exerted or consequences are threatened: Every further transfer is lost.
• Break off contact – immediately sever all communication channels with the perpetrators.
• Secure evidence – take screenshots of chats, the platform, account balances, and all transactions. Record all contact information: phone numbers, email addresses, names used, AnyDesk or TeamViewer IDs.
• Record blockchain data – the wallet address(es) to which crypto was transferred, as well as the transaction IDs. This information is essential for forensic investigation.
• Be prepared for further contact attempts – many victims are approached again after the first scam, supposedly by "investigators," "recovery specialists," or "recovery companies." This is almost always another attempted scam.

Save all evidence before taking any further steps. Once deleted, it is usually impossible to fully recover it.

Criminal charges and blockchain forensics – why the two belong together

Filing a criminal complaint is advisable – but it's rarely enough on its own. Those who go to the police without legal representation often find that the authorities are overwhelmed and their own blockchain forensics resources are limited. Without forensically prepared transaction evidence, it often takes months or years before investigators can actually trace the flow of money. By then, wallets have long since been emptied and perpetrators have disappeared.

Blockchain forensics closes this gap. Cryptocurrencies are not anonymous – they are pseudonymized. Every transaction is permanently and publicly recorded on the blockchain. Specialized forensic experts can trace the flow of funds seamlessly: from the victim's initial deposit through intermediate wallets to centralized exchanges like Binance, Kraken, or OKX. The result is a detailed forensic report with a graphical representation of the entire flow of funds. This report enables law enforcement agencies to act swiftly – to lock wallets and freeze assets – without having to spend months conducting their own analysis.

There are other reasons to file a criminal complaint: Only those officially registered as victims can benefit from the potential return of seized funds. If your own account details have been misused for illegal transactions, filing a complaint early protects you from being suspected of money laundering yourself. Furthermore, any resulting damages may be tax-deductible.

Our law firm files professionally prepared criminal charges based on forensic reports and coordinates communication with law enforcement agencies.

Besides criminal law, civil law offers further avenues. Claims against the perpetrators themselves generally exist under Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), as well as under Section 826 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (intentional immoral harm). The practical problem is well-known: the perpetrators are often untraceable, reside abroad, or operate anonymously behind shell companies.

Therefore, the focus is increasingly shifting to other parties involved in the transaction process:

• Cryptocurrency exchanges: If funds were transferred via regulated exchanges, individuals have a right to information. In certain cases, freezing requests can be filed. Exchanges often do not respond to direct inquiries from private individuals, but they do respond to letters from lawyers.
• Banks and payment service providers: If payments were processed via traditional bank transfers or payment service providers such as PayPal, it must be examined whether these providers violated their regulatory due diligence obligations. In certain circumstances, claims for damages may be considered.
• Credit institutions: In some cases, courts have held banks liable when demonstrably fraudulent transactions were not stopped in time.

Making a blanket statement about success is neither reliable nor possible. The chances depend on the specific circumstances of each individual case: the amount of damage, the payment method used, the location of the platform involved, and the response time after the fraud. Crucially, an early and coordinated approach is essential: forensic investigations, filing criminal charges, and civil proceedings are all interconnected. With each passing week, the trail becomes less clear.

Rogert & Ulbrich examines all civil claims on a case-by-case basis – against perpetrators, stock exchanges, payment service providers and credit institutions.

When is it worth hiring a lawyer in cases of crypto fraud?

In cases of cryptocurrency fraud, legal support is advisable in almost all instances. The complexity of the issue lies in the intersection of criminal law, civil law, international jurisdictions, and blockchain technology. Those who proceed alone risk destroying evidence, missing deadlines, or exposing themselves to criminal prosecution – for example, if their own account details have been used for suspicious transactions.

Legal counsel is particularly important if damages of several thousand euros or more have occurred, if cryptocurrency exchanges or payment service providers were involved in the transaction process, if one's own name or account details were used for suspicious transfers, or if a criminal complaint is to be filed in coordination with forensic measures.

Check whether your legal expenses insurance covers the lawyer's fees. Many policies cover proceedings in the area of cybercrime or Investment fraud From now on – it's always worth contacting your insurer early.

Conclusion: Act quickly, remain realistic

Crypto fraud is a multi-billion dollar, professionally organized crime – but it's not a lawless space. Perpetrators are increasingly being identified and prosecuted. Those who act quickly, secure evidence, and involve the right specialists have realistic chances of recovery in many cases – but there are no guarantees.

Be wary of anyone who makes unrealistic promises. Anyone who promises guaranteed repayment or only works on a contingency fee basis, which they secretly collect using dubious methods, is deceiving you a second time. Reputable legal counsel operates transparently and without guarantees of success.

If you have become a victim of crypto fraud, you should act now. Get in touch and secure your claims.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about Crypto Fraud

Der Beitrag Kryptobetrug – Geld zurückfordern: Was Betroffene jetzt wissen müssen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Anyone who becomes chronically ill after a vaccination faces a fundamental problem: the crucial information – which side effects were known to the manufacturer, how many suspected cases were reported, how the risk-benefit ratio of the vaccine was assessed – is not with the affected individual. It lies with the manufacturer. The German Medicines Act provides affected individuals with a legal tool in this situation: the right to information under Section 84a of the Act.

What exactly is Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG)?

The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a specific liability rule for pharmaceutical companies in Section 84. Anyone harmed by a medicinal product can, under certain conditions, claim damages. Section 84a AMG serves as a supplementary provision: This right to information is intended to provide affected individuals with the information they need to substantiate a claim for damages under Section 84 AMG.

The background is simple: In most cases, the burden of proof for a drug-related injury lies with the injured party. However, this party typically has no access to the manufacturer's product data, study results, and internal reporting systems. Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is intended to partially compensate for this structural information imbalance.

If you would like to know whether Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) could be relevant in your case, please contact Rogert & Ulbrich.

Who can request information?

Anyone who can demonstrate that there are facts justifying the assumption that a drug caused the damage incurred is entitled to claim compensation. Full proof is not required; it is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.

In its ruling of March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) clarified what plausibility means in this context: It does not require that the causal link between the drug and the damage be overwhelmingly probable. Plausibility can also exist if there are more reasons against than for the drug as the cause of the damage. The following circumstances, in particular, can be relevant to the question of plausibility: the close temporal connection between vaccination and the onset of damage, a vaccination injury already officially recognized, and expert medical assessments.

What information is included?

Section 84a paragraph 1 of the German Medicines Act (AMG) defines the subject matter of the information: The claim is directed at effects, side effects and interactions known to the pharmaceutical company, as well as suspected cases that have come to its attention. Furthermore, it extends to all other findings that may be relevant for assessing the acceptability of harmful effects.

In an earlier case, the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had limited the claim to information relating to the specific medical condition of the injured party. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) expressly rejected this limitation: The claim is comprehensive. To assess the risk-benefit ratio of a vaccine, all known side effects must be considered, not just the symptoms of the individual plaintiff.

In practice, this means that affected individuals may, under certain circumstances, demand that the manufacturer provide information on the entire spectrum of reported suspected cases, including thrombosis, myocarditis, or nerve problems that have been documented in other cases.

The hurdle: plausibility instead of probability.

The distinction between plausibility and probability established by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is the core of the ruling. In practice, the requirement of preponderance of probability had effectively excluded many affected individuals: those who do not have access to the manufacturer's internal data can rarely prove that the vaccination was predominantly the cause of their injury. This led to a paradoxical result – the information was needed to establish the right to access it.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has broken up this circularity: Plausibility is sufficient for obtaining information. Further requirements must then be met for damages – based on the information obtained.

Why manufacturers don't provide this information voluntarily

Even though the right to information is enshrined in law under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG), one should not expect pharmaceutical companies to readily release this information. The companies in question have significant legal and economic interests in not disclosing internal data. Experience shows that legal enforcement of this right is often necessary.

Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) provides an exception in paragraph 1, sentence 4: There is no right to information if information must be kept secret by law or if confidentiality serves an overriding interest of the pharmaceutical company or a third party. This exception clause gives manufacturers some leeway in their arguments. Whether invoking it is justified in a specific case must be clarified in court if a dispute arises.

If you believe you have a right to information, you should not rely on voluntary disclosure. Get in touch.

When is it worth hiring a lawyer?

The right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) is a technically demanding approach that requires precise legal knowledge. Formulating the request for information, arguing its plausibility, and pursuing it in court are not easily accomplished without legal assistance. At the same time, you should be aware that statutes of limitations may apply. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should check whether your insurance will cover the costs before retaining legal counsel.

Conclusion

Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) grants those injured by vaccines an important right: access to information held by the manufacturer that is essential for a proper assessment of their own situation. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, significantly strengthened this right. However, each case remains subject to individual review: the right to information is not an automatic path to compensation, but rather a necessary first step to gaining transparency about one's own situation.

Der Beitrag Auskunftsanspruch – Wie Impfgeschädigte an die Daten des Herstellers kommen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

Becoming suddenly ill after a COVID-19 vaccination – and then not even being able to find out what the manufacturer knew about potential risks. For many affected individuals, this was the reality for a long time. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) – the highest court for civil matters in Germany – changed this on March 9, 2026. The ruling means that the hurdle to obtaining information from the vaccine manufacturer is now significantly lower. Rogert & Ulbrich explains what this means in concrete terms – and what it doesn't mean.

What exactly happened?

Pia Aksoy is a dentist from Mainz. On March 5, 2021, she was vaccinated with the then-new AstraZeneca vaccine. Vaxzevria She got vaccinated against Corona. Three days later, she was permanently deaf in one ear.

The employers' liability insurance association – a state authority – officially recognized the vaccine injury. Nevertheless, her lawsuit against AstraZeneca failed: neither the Mainz Regional Court nor the Koblenz Higher Regional Court ruled in her favor. The courts demanded too much. She was required to prove that the vaccination was the cause – even though she needed precisely the information that AstraZeneca refused to provide.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has now resolved this paradox.

What did the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decide?

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has overturned the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz and sent the case back to that court (case number: VI ZR 335/24). This means that the Higher Regional Court of Koblenz must now decide the case anew – with lower standards.

The most important ruling by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) is that for the right to information to be valid, it is sufficient if a connection between the vaccination and the damage is plausible. Plausible means: It could have been the case. Not: It was certainly or most likely the case.

To illustrate: Someone drinks a glass of water and becomes ill shortly afterward. That alone isn't enough. But if the water was known to be contaminated and similar illnesses occurred in others, a connection is plausible. The right to information works on a similar principle.

Have you experienced health problems after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination? Talk to Rogert & Ulbrich before deadlines expire.

What does "right to information" mean?„

The German Medicines Act (AMG) contains a rule that many people are unaware of. It is called the right to information and is found in Section 84a of the Act.

It essentially states: If someone has potentially suffered harm from a medication or vaccine, they can request information from the manufacturer. For example: What did the manufacturer know about possible side effects? How many people have reported similar complaints? What internal findings exist regarding the product's risks?

This information is not an end in itself. It is the first step. Only when one knows what the manufacturer knew internally can one assess whether a claim for damages is warranted.

Until now, many affected individuals failed precisely at this point: The courts demanded proof of a connection before providing the information. But for that, the information itself was needed. A vicious cycle that has now been broken.

What information must the manufacturer now release?

According to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH), the right to information is comprehensive. Specifically, this means that the manufacturer must not only disclose information about the complaint that the affected person possesses. They must disclose all known side effects and suspected cases – in other words, the complete picture.

Why this is so important: To determine whether a vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio, all available data is needed. A selection is not enough.

In the case of Ms. Aksoy, for example, this means that AstraZeneca must not only release information on sudden hearing loss, but also on thrombosis, cerebral venous thrombosis and other reported damages with Vaxzevria.

What this verdict does not mean

This is an important point that needs to be clearly stated: The Federal Court of Justice ruling does not mean that vaccine manufacturers now have to pay damages. Nor does it mean that all those affected will automatically receive money.

The ruling only addresses the issue of disclosure. Whether damages are actually payable is a completely separate question. This would require, among other things, proof that the vaccine had a poor overall benefit-risk ratio at the time of vaccination. This is legally difficult and demanding.

In summary: The verdict opens a door. What lies behind it must then be discovered on a case-by-case basis.

Who could benefit from this?

According to experts, around 5,000 lawsuits concerning potential COVID-19 vaccine injuries were pending nationwide. This ruling could open up new avenues for some of these cases.

However, there is an important caveat: In some cases, lawsuits were filed only for damages, not for disclosure. Whether a claim for disclosure can still be enforced then depends on whether the statute of limitations has expired. Anyone who hasn't yet taken action should therefore not wait any longer.

When should I consult a lawyer?

If you became chronically ill after a COVID-19 vaccination and suspect a connection, now is a good time to seek legal advice. This is especially true if an authority has already recognized your vaccination injury, as the plausibility of a connection may be well-founded.

Deadlines are approaching. The longer you wait, the greater the risk that your claims will expire. If you have legal expenses insurance, you should clarify beforehand whether your insurance will cover the costs.

Further information on the right to information in cases of COVID-19 vaccination injuries can be found here.

Conclusion: An important step – but not a sure thing

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruling of March 9, 2026, represents a genuine change for people who became ill after receiving a COVID-19 vaccination. Authorities or courts no longer need to demand almost conclusive proof before providing information. It is sufficient if a connection appears plausible.

This changes the initial situation. However, it is neither a guarantee of compensation nor a free pass. It is the first step towards greater transparency – and thus towards the possibility of having one's own situation properly assessed in the first place.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Corona-Impfschäden – Was das für Betroffene bedeutet erschien zuerst auf R&U.

On March 9, 2026, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) issued a landmark ruling on pharmaceutical liability following Vaxzevria vaccinations (Case No. VI ZR 335/24). The decision concerns the requirements for the right to information under Section 84a of the German Medicines Act (AMG) and the claim for damages under Section 84 AMG. Rogert & Ulbrich represent clients nationwide in vaccination injury claims and monitor this development in case law.

The facts: Sudden hearing loss three days after vaccination

A 40-year-old dentist was vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine Vaxzevria on March 5, 2021. Immediately after the vaccination, she noticed a tingling sensation in her left hand. Three days later, she experienced complete hearing loss in her right ear, accompanied by tinnitus, gait instability, and numbness. The university hospital diagnosed her with idiopathic sudden hearing loss. A recovery of her hearing is not expected.

The plaintiff asserted claims for information and damages against AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical company. The Mainz Regional Court and the Koblenz Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim. The Federal Court of Justice overturned the appeal judgment and remanded the case.

Have you experienced health problems after receiving a Vaxzevria vaccination? Have your case reviewed before deadlines expire.

What the court decided

The court clarified several important points that apply to all those affected.

First: You don't have to prove that the vaccine caused your injury. It's enough if it's plausible – that is, comprehensible. The court explicitly stated that even if, at present, more evidence points against the vaccine as the cause than in favor of it, you can still request information.

Secondly, if the temporal relationship between vaccination and illness is close and no other cause can be proven, the law presumes that the vaccine was to blame. The manufacturer must then prove that something else was behind it – something concrete.

Thirdly: The doctors diagnosed the plaintiff with so-called "idiopathic sudden hearing loss." This only means that the cause has not been definitively established medically. The court clarifies: This is not proof that the vaccine was not to blame. It merely means that it cannot be said with certainty.

This is good news for everyone affected. Get in touch – we'll assess your individual situation.

What information can you request from the manufacturer?

Before claiming damages, one has the right to request information from the pharmaceutical company: What did the company know about the risks of the vaccine? What side effects were reported?

Previous courts have often restricted this right, ruling that information is only available about side effects that precisely match one's own medical condition. The Federal Court of Justice has now clearly stated: This is wrong. You can demand comprehensive information – about all known risks of the vaccine, including those affecting other patients. Only those who understand the bigger picture can assess whether a drug, overall, does more harm than good.

Do not sign any settlements or accept any rejections before you have asserted this right to information.

What about the official approval of the vaccine?

Vaxzevria was officially approved by the European Union. Many courts have used this as an argument: official approval means the vaccine is safe – and therefore no compensation can be claimed.

The Federal Court of Justice sees things differently. Admission is a decision based on the state of knowledge at the time. For a damages claim, what matters is what science knows today. And a court must determine this current state of knowledge through an independent expert – not by referring to old official assessments.

The Higher Regional Court of Koblenz had failed to do precisely that – and therefore its judgment was overturned.

If you feel that your procedure is based on outdated principles, have the decision reviewed.

What does that mean for you personally?

If you have become ill after receiving a vaxzevria vaccination and previously thought you had no legal recourse, you should have your situation reassessed. This is especially important if your doctor has classified the illness as "without a discernible cause," if a lawsuit has already been dismissed, or if you have not yet sought legal advice.

Important: There are deadlines for claims for damages. Anyone who was vaccinated in 2021 and learned of their injury early on should not wait any longer.

Read here the entire judgment.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers for vaccine injury cases

Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich specialize in claims for damages under the German Medicines Act. Since 2021, the law firm Rogert & Ulbrich has been representing individuals nationwide who have suffered health problems following a Vaxzevria vaccination and continuously monitors case law in this area.

Rogert & Ulbrich will examine whether and how a claim for information or compensation can be enforced on your behalf – both out of court and in court. In doing so, we collaborate with medical experts who assess the individual circumstances of your case.

Do you want to know if you are entitled to any benefits? Get in touch and secure your claims.

Der Beitrag BGH-Urteil zu Vaxzevria – Was Impfgeschädigte jetzt wissen müssen erschien zuerst auf R&U.

What is pig butchering – and why is the term so unusual?

The term “Pig Butchering“This describes a specific form of investment fraud in which perpetrators systematically build up their victims' confidence over weeks or months before striking. The name derives from the practice of fattening a pig before slaughter – an image for the perpetrators' systematic approach, who initially lull their victims into a false sense of security before siphoning off their accumulated savings.”.

Contact is usually established via dating apps, social networks, or seemingly misdirected WhatsApp messages. The perpetrators build a relationship of trust over several weeks before bringing up the topic of cryptocurrency investments. They present fake trading platforms that appear professional and initially even show small profits – to entice the victim to deposit further sums. Once a sufficiently large amount has been deposited, the platform disappears – and with it, the money. These operations are often the work of internationally organized networks that seek out their victims worldwide.

If you have transferred funds to an investment platform and now no longer have access, you should seek legal advice immediately.

DOJ and Tether: The investigative success of February 2026

On February 25, 2026, Tether, the issuer of the USDT stablecoin, announced that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had recognized its cooperation in a seizure operation. Investigators from the Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) in Raleigh, North Carolina, had begun tracing stolen funds through multiple cryptocurrency wallets following a victim's report. The result: nearly $61 million in USDT was recovered. The funds originated from a pig butchering operation that had defrauded victims in several countries.

The speed of the seizure was only possible because Tether cooperated with authorities in real time and was able to freeze affected wallets. According to Tether, it has frozen approximately $4.2 billion in assets linked to illegal activities to date. The company works with over 310 law enforcement agencies in more than 64 countries.

The current case is not an isolated incident. In June 2025, Tether, together with OKX, enabled the DOJ to initiate civil proceedings against approximately $225 million in USDT from pig butchering fraud. In November 2025, the company assisted the Royal Thai Police and the U.S. Secret Service in securing $12 million from a transnational fraud network. In March 2025, $23 million in USDT linked to the Russian exchange Garantex was frozen. The list of documented cases is growing.

This case demonstrates that crypto fraud leaves traces – even when perpetrators use multiple wallets. Act early to prevent these traces from going cold.

How does pig butchering work in practice?

The typical pig butchering scam follows a clearly recognizable pattern. Victims often describe similar experiences:

• Initial contact: Seemingly random contact via a dating app, LinkedIn, or a misaddressed message. The perpetrator presents themselves as a friendly person.
• Building trust: Weeks or months of communication, often daily. The perpetrators invest considerable time in establishing a personal relationship.
• Investment tip: A seemingly random reference to a crypto trading platform. The victim is invited to initially invest small amounts.
• Fake winnings: The fraudulent platform displays attractive winnings. The victim deposits more money, recommends the platform to others, or even takes out loans.
• Scam: When attempting to withdraw winnings, "taxes" or "fees" suddenly appear. Eventually, the platform becomes inaccessible.

Victims lose considerable sums on average – in many documented cases between €10,000 and several hundred thousand euros. The psychological effect of building trust over a long period leads many victims to continue paying in even after the first warning signs.

If you recognize this pattern – whether as an affected person or for a close relative – have the situation legally assessed.

Legal options for affected individuals in Germany

In Germany, the loss of funds through pig butchering constitutes the criminal offense of fraud under Section 263 of the Criminal Code. Victims generally have the option of filing a criminal complaint and asserting civil claims for damages.

In practice, several approaches are relevant. Filing a criminal complaint allows for the involvement of the public prosecutor's office and cooperation with international authorities. Civil lawsuits are directed against identifiable individuals or companies that were involved with the platform—for example, payment service providers that knowingly forwarded funds. Forensic blockchain analysis often allows the whereabouts of cryptocurrencies to be traced far back; these findings can be used in court proceedings. The Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA) has specialized units for cybercrime; in cross-border cases, Europol must also be involved.

Important: The chances of success depend heavily on how quickly action is taken after the fraud. The more recent the transaction data, the sooner wallet addresses can be traced and funds blocked. Those who initially act independently and make mistakes can complicate their legal position.

Have your case reviewed before taking any action on your own – incorrect steps can make later legal action more difficult.

When is it worth hiring a lawyer in a pig butchering fraud case?

Pig butchering is a cross-border phenomenon. Perpetrators often operate from countries with which no or only limited mutual legal assistance agreements exist. Purely criminal law approaches therefore often reach their limits.

A lawyer experienced in cryptocurrency fraud can provide a realistic assessment of which civil legal steps are likely to be successful. This includes examining whether intermediary institutions – such as banks or payment service providers – can be held liable for the transfer of funds. The question of whether the fraudulent platform was promoted by third parties can also be legally relevant.

Many victims also have legal expenses insurance that can cover losses due to fraud. It's worthwhile having the policy terms reviewed before retaining legal counsel.

Contact us if you have been harmed by pig butchering. An initial assessment will show whether and what steps are advisable.

Conclusion

The seizure of nearly $61 million by the DOJ and Tether demonstrates that pig butchering fraud cannot permanently conceal stolen funds. Blockchain transparency and international cooperation between authorities and crypto companies make tracing possible – even across multiple wallets.

For those affected in Germany, the situation remains complex. The path from identifying fraudulent wallets to actually recovering funds is long and fraught with legal and practical hurdles. Early action, documented evidence, and qualified legal support are crucial.

Further information on cryptocurrency fraud and the legal options for victims can be found here. here.

Rogert & Ulbrich – Your lawyers in crypto fraud

Dr. Marco Rogert and Tobias Ulbrich are lawyers with experience in cases of cryptocurrency fraud and online fraud. The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich has handled numerous cases in this area and has a broad network of technical experts and forensic specialists in blockchain analysis.

The law firm represents clients both out of court and in court. Its services include the legal assessment of fraud damages, coordination with law enforcement agencies, and the examination of civil claims against third parties involved in the transaction.

Have you been a victim of pig butchering or a similar scam? Get in touch and secure your claims.

Der Beitrag Pig Butchering Betrug – US-Behörden stellen 61 Millionen Dollar in USDT sicher erschien zuerst auf R&U.

BaFin warning from February 2026 – content and legal significance

On February 6, 2026, the BaFin A consumer notice pursuant to Section 37 Paragraph 4 of the German Banking Act (KWG) was issued, explicitly warning against blue-invest.org. The financial supervisory authority determined that the operators are offering banking services, financial services, and cryptocurrency services without the required authorization in Germany.

In Germany, offering financial services requiring a license without authorization from BaFin (the Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) is prohibited under the Banking Act (KWG) and the Securities Institutions Act (WpIG). This licensing requirement protects investors: Licensed providers are subject to ongoing supervision, minimum capital requirements, and binding codes of conduct towards their clients. Without authorization, all of these safeguards are lost. Investors who use an unauthorized platform have virtually no regulatory recourse in the event of a dispute.

Whether a provider actually has a BaFin license can be checked free of charge via BaFin's public company database at bafin.de. If an entry is missing there – as in the case of blue-invest.org – this is a clear warning sign, regardless of how professionally the provider's website is designed.

If you have deposited money at blue-invest.org and have not received a payout: Secure all documents now and have your case assessed by a lawyer.

How the scam behind blue-invest.org works

blue-invest.org follows a fraudulent scheme that operates in the field of... Crypto investment fraud The platform has been under international surveillance by law enforcement agencies for years. Victims report being contacted via social networks, messaging services, or advertisements. The platform itself presents itself with a professionally designed website, a structured user account, and a personal contact person – features intended to mimic reputable providers.

In its early stages, blue-invest.org displays fictitious profits that are technically almost indistinguishable from genuine trading profits for those affected. Cryptocurrency platforms can internally display price movements, account balances, and transactions without any real market activity behind them. The actual fraud only occurs when users attempt to withdraw their funds. Pattern It turns out that payments are blocked with reference to alleged tax obligations, processing fees, verification requirements, or minimum trading volumes. In many cases, all contact with blue-invest.org eventually ceases completely.

Legal classification under criminal and regulatory law of blue-invest.org

Unauthorized financial services under the German Banking Act (KWG)

Offering banking and financial services requiring a license without authorization from BaFin (the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) is a criminal offense under Section 54 of the German Banking Act (KWG) and can be punished with imprisonment of up to five years or a fine. The BaFin warning issued in February 2026 officially documents this suspicion and is therefore also relevant for civil proceedings against the operators of blue-invest.org: it proves that the platform was operating outside the regulated framework.

Fraud according to § 263 of the German Criminal Code

Regardless of any regulatory violations, the described practices of blue-invest.org generally constitute fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB): Perpetrators deceive investors about the actual functioning of the platform, the existence of real trading transactions, and the availability of reported balances. Investors are thereby induced to make deposits that they would not have made had they been correctly informed. In cases of organized and cross-border activity, commercial fraud under Section 263 Paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) may apply, which is punishable by imprisonment of up to ten years.

A qualified criminal complaint, based on fully secured communication and payment data, significantly increases the likelihood of an investigation. Act before digital traces are lost.

Legal options for victims of blue-invest.org

Criminal complaint and securing of evidence

The most time-critical step is securing all available documentation: screenshots of the blue-invest.org platform and the user account, all communication with the provider and any intermediaries, payment receipts, transaction records, and wallet addresses. This documentation forms the basis for filing a criminal complaint with the relevant police station or the specialized public prosecutor's office for internet crime. The more structured and complete the documentation, the greater the chance of an actual investigation being launched.

Civil law claims for restitution

If deposits to blue-invest.org were made via identifiable bank accounts, credit cards, or regulated payment service providers, claims for reimbursement under Sections 812 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB) may be considered. For card payments, a chargeback procedure should be initiated immediately. If intermediary payment service providers or credit institutions have violated their duty of care, claims may also exist against them. For deposits via cryptocurrencies, a forensic blockchain analysis is required to document money flows and prepare them as a basis for official action.

Lost money at blue-invest.org – here's what to do now

Anyone who has deposited money with blue-invest.org and is experiencing withdrawal problems should refrain from making any further payments – regardless of what they are called. Each additional transfer increases the risk without improving the withdrawal situation. Likewise, do not grant any remote access to your devices offered in connection with blue-invest.org or alleged helpers.

All available documents must be fully secured and not deleted. Based on this, an initial legal assessment should be obtained promptly to clarify the facts, the chances of success, and sensible next steps. Anyone who is contacted by another provider after a loss at blue-invest.org should... Get your money back Anyone considering this contact should classify it as a potential recovery scam and have it reviewed by a lawyer first. Rogert & Ulbrich is available nationwide for an initial assessment.

Your lawyers for crypto fraud and blue-invest.org – Rogert & Ulbrich

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich advises and represents clients nationwide in cases of cryptocurrency fraud, unauthorized financial services, and online investment fraud. The firm assists clients both out of court through consultation, document review, and correspondence with payment service providers, as well as in criminal proceedings and civil lawsuits. In cases involving cryptocurrency transactions, the firm collaborates with forensic specialists to prepare blockchain data for court admissibility and to identify perpetrator structures.

If you have been harmed by blue-invest.org or a similar platform, do not hesitate to contact us. Get in touch and secure your claims.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions about blue-invest.org

Der Beitrag BaFin Warnung: blue-invest.org – Was Geschädigte bei Krypto-Betrug jetzt tun können erschien zuerst auf R&U.

What is a recovery scam after cryptocurrency fraud?

Recovery scams – also known as refund scams or recovery fraud – are fraudulent activities that structurally build upon a primary fraud that has already occurred. Perpetrators pose as specialized recovery service providers, lawyers, crypto investigators, or representatives of authorities such as BaFin, Europol, or public prosecutors. The core element is always an upfront payment: disguised as a processing fee, release tax, escrow deposit, or activation transaction, a payment is demanded, after which the promised service is never provided.

In practice, neither the promised repatriation service nor any legal basis for the alleged measures exists. After payment is received, contact is either completely broken off or maintained through further escalating demands for fees. Documented cases show advance payments ranging from several hundred to several thousand euros. The presentation of the offers is professionally designed: dedicated websites, forged official letters with file numbers, AI-generated team photos, and fabricated success stories create an environment of trust that is virtually impossible for victims to see through.

Have you received unsolicited contact from someone claiming to be a vehicle repatriation service? Have the legitimacy of the offer reviewed by a lawyer before making any payments.

How perpetrators obtain data from crypto fraud victims in recovery scams

Recovery scam networks do not operate indiscriminately. Victim data is obtained through multiple, complementary channels. When a fraudulent platform is exposed or shuts down, internal victim lists are often resold – recovery scam networks acquire these specifically and exploit the existing trust from the initial contact. In many cases, the perpetrator networks originate from the same organizational environment as the perpetrators of the original fraud.

In parallel, perpetrators systematically monitor public forums, review platforms, and social media for reports from fraud victims and make direct contact there. Specially created websites, optimized for search terms like "crypto fraud help" or "investment fraud money back," intercept victims via search engines. Additionally, criminal groups place paid advertisements on Google and social media, targeting users searching for information about their losses. In sophisticated cases, victims receive fake official letters announcing the alleged seizure of the fraudulent funds and demanding a release fee.

Structural warning signs in recovery scams after crypto fraud

Prepayment as a condition

The most reliable and unmistakable warning sign is a demand for advance payment – regardless of how it is described. No reputable legal service provider or forensic expert demands money before providing services. Anyone demanding a processing fee, release fee, or escrow deposit without first reviewing the case and establishing a client relationship is acting fraudulently.

Lack of documentation and unsolicited contact

No legitimate provider will contact fraud victims unsolicited. Furthermore, recovery scam providers are generally not listed in any verifiable register: neither in the German Federal Bar Association's (BRAK) directory of lawyers nor in the commercial register. Addresses provided either do not exist or belong to other companies. The .law or .legal domain extensions of some providers only create the appearance of legal legitimacy – actual licensing checks by registrars are generally not carried out.

Success guarantees and crypto payment requirements

Recovery rates, success guarantees, or concrete payout promises without prior case review are simply not possible. Anyone making such promises is misleading about the actual possibilities. The exclusive acceptance of cryptocurrencies as payment methods—Bitcoin, Tether, USDC—is no coincidence: Crypto transactions are practically impossible for laypersons to reverse without forensic assistance and evade chargeback procedures. A young domain age, which can be determined free of charge via a WHOIS query, is another structural indicator.

If you are unsure whether a contact offer is legitimate: An initial legal assessment protects against further damage. Get in touch.

Suspicious domains and websites associated with recovery scams

During research into potential recovery scam structures, domains repeatedly appear that exhibit typical characteristics of such offers. This does not constitute a definitive legal assessment in any individual case. The following list serves to illustrate typical patterns.

• agbglobal.cc („Alliance Against Fraud“)This website imitates the brand name of Allianz SE, which itself explicitly warns against identity theft by third parties. The .cc domain is registered outside the German legal framework; no BaFin authorization or commercial register entry can be verified.
• bavaria-rechtundberatung.com („Bavaria Law & Advice“): Suggests Bavarian regionality and legal competence, without a corresponding company being listed in the BRAK lawyers' directory or commercial register.
• hengelermuellerc.com („Hengeler Müller„(") The name of the renowned law firm Hengeler Mueller is imitated by adding a "c" – a classic typosquatting pattern. This can mislead victims of fraud who are specifically seeking legal assistance.
• astra-legalberatung.com („Astra Veritas„(): Combines a Latin-sounding name with multilingual content, without any registered company or law firm being demonstrable in German registers.
• krypto-radar.deDespite a .de domain and German-language website, legally required information such as a legal notice with a valid address or business registration is missing. Technical terms are used without any methodological explanation.
• fallzentrum.de („Fall Center“)A generic name that feigns official legitimacy. There is neither an entry in the bar register nor any verifiable connection to a legitimate consulting organization.
• de-orion.site („ORION LAW AGENCY“)The prefix "de" suggests a German affiliation; the domain is registered under the generic .site extension – cheap, anonymous and available at short notice.
• hilfe.law („Fraud Help“)The .law domain extension creates an impression of legal legitimacy. The name is specifically optimized for search queries like "fraud help" in order to intercept already defrauded individuals via search engines.

Common pattern: professional-looking presentation, no verifiable company registration in Germany, no affiliation with actual lawyers or specialist institutions. Note: This list serves solely to illustrate typical patterns. No final legal assessment of the individual providers is provided here.

Criminal classification of the recovery scam

Fraud according to § 263 of the German Criminal Code

Recovery scams generally constitute fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The perpetrators deceive their victims about their identity, their licensing, and their actual ability to perform their duties, thereby creating a false impression and inducing them to make a financial transaction – namely, an advance payment. The damage occurs immediately upon payment, as the promised service is never intended from the outset. Organized and repeated offenses constitute commercial fraud under Section 263 Paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), which is punishable by imprisonment of up to ten years.

Further offenses

In addition to Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), other offenses may apply depending on the specific circumstances. Creating and using forged official letters, fictitious court orders, or imitated law firm letterheads constitutes forgery of documents under Section 267 of the German Criminal Code. Anyone acting as a lawyer without a license or offering legal repatriation services is also committing an administrative offense or a criminal offense under Section 3 in conjunction with Section 20 of the German Legal Services Act (RDG). In cases of cross-border criminal networks with a division of labor, the offense of forming a criminal organization under Section 129 of the German Criminal Code may also apply.

A well-founded criminal complaint, supported by secured communication and payment data, significantly increases the likelihood of a successful investigation. Don't wait too long – digital traces fade.

Legal options for victims of recovery scams in cryptocurrency fraud

Criminal complaint and forensic documentation

The first and most time-sensitive step is to file a criminal complaint with the responsible police station or the specialized public prosecutor's office for cybercrime. The quality of the accompanying documentation is crucial: all communication – emails, chat logs, payment receipts, screenshots – should be fully secured and systematically organized. If payments were processed via cryptocurrencies, a forensic blockchain analysis is necessary to trace the flow of funds and identify the perpetrators.

Civil law recovery

If payments were processed via identifiable bank accounts or payment service providers, claims for unjust enrichment under Sections 812 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB) may be considered. If the perpetrators' intent is proven, additional claims for damages under Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) in conjunction with Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB) must be examined. For card payments, chargeback procedures can be initiated – this option is generally excluded for crypto payments, which is why forensic transaction data is of particular importance here.

When legal support is advisable in cases of recovery scams

Legal support is advisable in almost every recovery scam case – regardless of whether payment has already been made or whether only initial contact has taken place. If payments were made via cryptocurrencies, specialized legal and forensic expertise is essential for tracing the fraud and securing evidence. From the mid-five-figure range upwards, legal and forensic support is regularly justified in relation to the potential for compensation and prosecution.

Even if no payment has yet been made, it is advisable to verify any contact offer received: Identifying a fraudulent contact early on protects against the full extent of the damage. Those who have already fallen victim to the original scam and are now being contacted by recovery scammers should also save all communication as potential evidence for both fraudulent activities. This communication often contains clues about the infrastructure and people behind the original scam.

If you have been contacted by an alleged recovery service provider: Take action before you pay. An initial consultation with our law firm will clarify your legal position.

Your lawyers for recovery scams and crypto fraud – Rogert & Ulbrich

The law firm Rogert & Ulbrich advises and represents clients nationwide in Area of crypto fraud and online fraud. Our lawyers have many years of experience representing aggrieved investors and crypto investors – from the initial consultation to the legal enforcement of claims for damages.

If you have fallen victim to a recovery scam or received suspicious contact, don't hesitate. Get in touch and protect your rights.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions

Der Beitrag Rechtsanwälte für Recovery Scam – Wenn Krypto-Betrugsopfer ein zweites Mal geschädigt werden erschien zuerst auf R&U.

What is a recovery scam?

A recovery scam is a type of fraud in which perpetrators specifically target people who already a victim of investment fraud or crypto fraud have become. The perpetrators pose as specialized recovery service providers, blockchain investigators, independent experts, or even as supposed government representatives.

The core promise is always the same: the lost funds have already been located, frozen, or can be recovered – against an advance payment. In reality, no such possibility exists. The payment goes directly to the perpetrators, and afterwards either further demands for money follow or all contact ceases.

Recovery scams have developed into a distinct criminal phenomenon in the digital financial sector in recent years. The number of unreported cases is high, as many victims do not file a report out of shame or resignation.

Astra Veritas (astra-legalberatung.com) – Warning signs and reports from those affected

Under the name Astra Veritas and the domain astra-legalberatung.com, there are increasing reports of contact attempts following a known pattern. These are accounts and descriptions from victims. The described patterns show significant overlap with typical recovery scam structures.

According to reports, initial contact is often unsolicited via email, telephone, or social media platforms. The perpetrators deliberately mention details from the original fraud case—such as the amount invested or the platform used—to build trust and feign professionalism. Subsequently, they suggest that the lost funds have already been "located" and can simply be "unlocked"—upon an advance payment for alleged fees, taxes, or processing charges, often in cryptocurrencies.

According to reports, after the initial payment, either further demands with new justifications follow, or contact ceases completely. Reputable lawyers and investigative authorities never demand lump-sum advance payments for allegedly already secured assets – this fact alone is a reliable warning sign.

Crypto fraud and recovery scam – why victims are doubly targeted

Recovery scams are so dangerous because they deliberately exploit emotional vulnerability. Those who have suffered significant financial losses are often in a psychologically stressful situation – and are therefore more susceptible to seemingly professional offers of help.

Furthermore, in many cases the perpetrators possess astonishingly detailed information: they know the amount of the loss, the platform used, and sometimes even personal contact details. There is a well-founded suspicion that data is being shared or sold between different groups of perpetrators. In some cases, the same masterminds even operate first as a fraudulent trading platform and then – under a new name – as supposed saviors.

Recent cases from police statistics and press releases from law enforcement agencies confirm that this type of fraud is increasing throughout Germany. Losses in the five- and six-figure range are not uncommon.

Fraud according to § 263 of the German Criminal Code – legal classification of the recovery scam

Recovery scams generally constitute the criminal offense of fraud under Section 263 of the German Criminal Code (StGB). The perpetrators deceive victims about facts – such as the alleged location or freezing of lost cryptocurrencies – in order to induce a transfer of assets in the form of a payment. The fact that the promised service is never intended to be provided constitutes the fraudulent intent.

For those affected, several legal questions typically arise in this context. Whether payments made can be reclaimed depends crucially on the specific payment method. With regulated payment providers or card payments, chargeback claims or claims for damages may exist. Cryptocurrency payments are technically almost impossible to reverse directly, but are relevant under criminal and civil law. Filing a criminal complaint with the competent public prosecutor's office or police is generally advisable, as it triggers investigations and can serve as a basis for any civil proceedings. Depending on the circumstances, international legal assistance procedures may also be considered for perpetrators based abroad.

Recovery for Victims of Scams – Concrete Steps After Contact by Astra Veritas

If you have been contacted by a company like Astra Veritas or have already made payments as part of a supposed recovery service, it is important to proceed calmly and systematically. Hasty actions can weaken your legal position.

Under no circumstances should any further payments be made – every additional transfer increases the damage without improving the chances of recovery. All existing documents should be fully secured: emails, chat logs, payment receipts, and screenshots are essential for a legal review. All contact with the alleged service provider should be discontinued, as further communication has been shown to worsen the situation. The next step is to obtain an initial legal assessment before making any further decisions. Additionally, filing a criminal complaint with the police or public prosecutor's office should be considered, as this will initiate an investigation and is often a prerequisite for further legal action.

Important: Even if payments have already been made, the situation should not be prematurely dismissed as hopeless. Depending on the payment method and the specific circumstances, legal avenues may exist.

Hiring a lawyer in case of recovery scam – when and why it's worthwhile

The legal handling of a recovery scam is complex – especially when substantial sums have already changed hands, payments were made via cryptocurrencies, or the perpetrators are based abroad. In these situations, it is advisable to consult a lawyer specializing in banking and capital markets law as well as digital financial crime at an early stage.

One legal advice Among other things, it can clarify the following points: the realistic assessment of recovery opportunities, the analysis of payment flows, coordination with law enforcement authorities, and the examination of civil claims against participating platforms or payment service providers.

Rogert & Ulbrich Lawyers advise clients in the field of banking and capital markets law and are available for an initial assessment of your situation. Get in touch and clarify your legal options.

Conclusion: Beware of the second scam

Recovery scams like the one reported in connection with the name Astra Veritas deliberately exploit the distress of those who have already been victims. A professional demeanor, technical jargon, and supposed guarantees of success are no indication of legitimacy. The crucial warning sign remains the demand for advance payments for services that cannot be provided.

Anyone who has fallen victim to a recovery scam or is unsure whether such contact has occurred should seek legal advice without delay. An early assessment of the individual situation can help prevent further harm and allow for the utilization of available legal options.

FAQs – Frequently Asked Questions

Der Beitrag Recovery Scam Astra Veritas – So schützen Sie sich vor der zweiten Betrugsmasche erschien zuerst auf R&U.