19.01.2026 (New)
The Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag sent a letter dated 18. The Petitions Committee has confirmed receipt of the supervisory complaint to BaFin for information purposes in a letter dated December 31, 2025, which the plaintiff only recently received. The Petitions Committee asks the plaintiff to wait for a response from the Federal Government (possibly the Federal Ministry of Finance?) before the Petitions Committee becomes active in the matter. If the Federal Government’s answer is not satisfactory, the plaintiff can turn to the Petitions Committee again and explain what else should be the subject of a parliamentary investigation.
12.01.2026 (New)
In a letter dated January 12, 2026, the Federal Ministry of Finance responded to the BaFin supervisory complaint. The delay in BaFin’s processing was caused by an ambiguity in a letter that was already known, although the Federal Ministry did not specify which letter was involved. Instead of commenting on the content of the BaFin complaint, the Federal Ministry merely refers to the judgment of the Hamm Higher Regional Court and confirms – without further examination – that the claims to the account balance are time-barred. This judgment of the Higher Regional Court is binding for the Executive. As a result, neither BaFin nor the Federal Ministry of Finance can be of any assistance in the matter.
With such an argument, the Federal Ministry of Finance fails to recognize that this is a supervisory complaint against the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr, in which BaFin was requested to initiate an internal investigation at the Sparkasse in order to investigate the inadequate record keeping and insufficient business organization (inadequate compliance structures / lack of processing of National Socialist crimes). As is well known, the Sparkasse refuses to disclose archive documents relating to the Nazi era. Such an internal bank investigation by BaFin as a supervisory authority
(supervisory proceedings) has nothing to do with the ongoing court proceedings or with the savings bank’s plea of limitation. A supervisory complaint must be dealt with in parallel with court proceedings, especially as the plaintiff has also filed a pending appeal against denial of leave to appeal to the Federal Supreme Court.
Against this background, the response from the Federal Ministry of Finance is extremely unsatisfactory, which is why the plaintiff will now also turn to the Petitions Committee of the Bundestag.
12.01.2026
Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr has served the statement of defense to the appeal against denial of leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice
(Appeal against denial of leave to appeal: the Hamm Higher Regional Court denies the plaintiff access to the Federal Constitutional Court). In addition to the well-known adherence to the statute of limitations of the claim, the statement of defense ignores any question of Nazi injustice, moral culpability and duties of conduct towards Arthur Levy and the plaintiff descendant. Among other things, the statement of defense also asserts, contrary to the record, that there was never any conduct on the part of the bank that would have prevented Arthur Levy or his heirs from asserting claims during the non-barred period.
An absolute scandal in the statement of defense is the request to increase the amount in dispute to EUR 2 million, so that if the plaintiff loses, he will have to pay significantly more court and legal fees. An attempt is thus being made to hit the plaintiff with the costs cudgel, which is outrageous and impious in view of Arthur Levy’s bank assets, which were expropriated during the Nazi era, and the active obstruction of the assertion of claims to the bank assets (false information, etc.).
The members of the Management Board of Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr: Frank Walter, Markus Hacke, Frank Mohrherr, Thorsten Haering:
https://www.spkvr.de/de/home/ihre-sparkasse/vorstand.html The savings bank is represented in the proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice by the law firm Siegmann Höger in Karlsruhe: https://siegmann-hoeger.de/
09.12.2025
In a letter dated December 3, 2025, probably under pressure from the Federal Ministry of Finance, BaFin finally confirmed receipt of the supervisory complaint dated July 7, 2025 against Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr (formerly Sparkasse Hagen) after several months. The supervisory complaint will be taken into account as part of BaFin’s supervision of this savings bank. However, the complainant will not be informed of the details and results of the supervisory treatment due to legal requirements.
In addition, the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag confirmed receipt of the supervisory complaint to BaFin in a letter dated November 19, 2025. November 2025, the Petitions Committee of the Bundestag also acknowledged receipt of the supervisory complaint of July 7, 2025 to BaFin and will deal with it within the Petitions Committee if the plaintiff receives further notification from the Petitions Committee.
09.12.2025
In its ruling of November 26, 2025, the Hamm Higher Regional Court rejected the restitution claim of May 27, 2025 (new document Simson Cohen of 1963, which reveals that the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr also made untrue claims against Simson Cohen’s account). This judgment was brought to the attention of the Federal Court of Justice as part of the appeal against denial of leave to appeal. The restitution ground from § 580 no. 7 letter b) ZPO (new Simson-Cohen document) should already be able to be considered in the context of the appeal against denial of leave to appeal to the Federal Court of Justice without having to wait for the judgment to become final.
17.11.2025
Despite several inquiries, BaFin has not confirmed receipt of the supervisory complaint of July 7, 2025 and has even stated by e-mail that BaFin has not received the complaint, even though the complaint was sent by registered mail from Bern to Bonn and delivery is proven by a legally valid postal receipt. This constitutes a breach of the principles of good administration, which is also protected under European law (Art. 41 of the EU Charter).
As the supervisory complaint is a matter of considerable public and historical importance – namely the suspicion of systematic regulatory violations and compliance failures by Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr in connection with expropriated Jewish assets from the Nazi era – BaFin’s willful inaction is particularly serious. The plaintiff against Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr therefore wrote to the supervisory authority BaFin on November 14, 2025 and requested the Federal Ministry of Finance (Financial Market Policy Division) in this regard:
- to have the facts of the unprocessed supervisory complaint examined by the supervisory authority
- to request BaFin to issue a written statement and submit a file
- to order the regulatory audit of Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr in accordance with the original submission of July 7, 2025
- and to confirm receipt of this letter and the steps taken in writing.
In view of the historical dimension of the case – expropriation of Jewish assets, cover-up of institutional responsibility and possible systemic supervisory deficits – this letter was also forwarded as a copy to the Petitions Committee of the German Bundestag, as it concerns an issue of considerable socio-political significance beyond the purely supervisory level.
Supervisory complaint to the BaFin against Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr!
The plaintiff against Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr in the Arthur Levy legal case has filed a regulatory complaint with the German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin) and requested BaFin to initiate an investigation into the savings bank:
– Suspicion of a violation of § 25a KWG due to false information regarding the accounts of Arthur Levy and Simson Cohen, inadequate record keeping and insufficient business organization;
– Deception of government agencies through demonstrably false statements regarding the destruction of account files (Simson Cohen, 1963);
– Failure to comply with obligations in dealing with dormant assets, in particular vis-à-vis descendants entitled to inherit;
– inadequate compliance structures and control bodies as well as a failure to deal with National Socialist crimes.
Following the ruling by the Hamm Higher Regional Court, further documents have since come to light which prove that in 1963 the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr also made untruthful statements about the plaintiff’s great-grandfather, Simson Cohen, regarding his bank account at the same savings bank and made the demonstrably false protective claim to the authorities that the account documents had been bombed or destroyed. The savings bank thus systematically covered up the truth about the expropriated Jewish bank deposits.
For this reason, an action for restitution was also filed with the Hamm Higher Regional Court on May 27, 2025, so that the new findings would allow the proceedings to be reopened at the 2nd instance. The new documents have shown that the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr itself deliberately provided false information to other corporate bodies. However, the Hamm Higher Regional Court assumed that the plaintiff’s grandfather and account holder Arthur Levy could have received correct information after the foundation of the FRG. However, the newly discovered documents show that Arthur Levy would certainly have been given incorrect information about his account if he had asked the savings bank. The plea of the statute of limitations is therefore unfaithful and unlawful. In addition, the reversal of the burden of proof becomes definitive; the savings bank must prove that it would have provided truthful information about Arthur Levy’s account, which it fails to do.
Press statement from May 7, 2025: Ruling by OLG Hamm
We expected our appeal to be dismissed after the hearing, but are nevertheless very disappointed. The Hamm Higher Regional Court has confirmed the plea of the statute of limitations of Sparkasse Hagen (Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr) in the case of the expropriation of Arthur Levy’s bank assets during the Nazi era. The Higher Regional Court dismissed the claim and did not allow an appeal on the grounds that there was neither an expropriation nor a fundamental legal issue. This was despite the fact that evidence of the account existed and the case clearly concerned Nazi-related transfers of assets. For this reason, an appeal against denial of leave to appeal has been filed with the Federal Supreme Court; the legal issues must be clarified at the highest court level.
The judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm fails to recognize the historical responsibility of Sparkasse Hagen and contradicts the principle that National Socialist injustice must not be time-barred. Arthur Levy, my grandfather and a Swiss citizen, was the victim of a National Socialist crime in the 1930s when he was refused payment of his rightful credit balance at Sparkasse Hagen. Despite repeated attempts, both by him and by me as a descendant, to obtain information about the account, the Sparkasse remained inactive. In addition, the Sparkasse repeatedly denied the existence of the bank account until the lawsuit was filed and still refuses to hand over relevant information.
Both the account holder and I have never been given a fair chance to make a claim on the bank balance, which is why the plea of limitation is both morally reprehensible and unlawful.
The pre-litigation conduct of Sparkasse Hagen remains decisive.
Today’s ruling not only ignores the obligation to make reparations, but also sends a fatal signal: it suggests that institutional silence about National Socialist crimes and the refusal to be transparent can be rewarded. This is contrary to the raison d’état of the Federal Republic of Germany, which recognizes the investigation and reparation of National Socialist crimes as a priority and indispensable.
The question of the statute of limitations for expropriated bank deposits during the Nazi era and the responsibility of the savings bank must therefore be clarified at the highest court level.
Correction to the press release of the Hamm Higher Regional Court dated 07.05.2025:
In its press release dated May 7, 2025, the Hamm Higher Regional Court assumes that the limitation periods are long enough “so that those affected by National Socialist injustice also have a fair chance of asserting their claims in good time before the statute of limitations expires. This also applies to the individual case decided here…”
We must correct this statement by the Hamm Higher Regional Court. The plaintiff only learned in November 2019, on the basis of Swiss federal archive documents, that his grandfather Arthur Levy had an account at the Sparkasse Hagen, which was expropriated from him during the Nazi regime and payment was refused accordingly. Neither the account holder nor the plaintiff were therefore able to assert their claims to the bank balance in good time before the statute of limitations set in; these are facts on record and known to the Higher Regional Court of Hamm. Due to the pre-litigation conduct of Sparkasse Hagen, which disputed the existence of the account until the lawsuit was filed in 2020, the plea of the statute of limitations is also unlawful (good faith).
Written justification of the judgment of the OLG Hamm of May 7, 2025In the written reasons for the ruling of May 7, 2025, the Hamm Higher Regional Court did not take the following significant facts into account in its decision:
1. The Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr twice denied the existence of Arthur Levy’s bank balance to the plaintiff in writing – contrary to the files – before the action was filed (no account available);
2. the bank deposits were expropriated to finance the war chest during the National Socialist regime;
3. the civil limitation period of 30 years must not be applied to this
Nazi crime may not be applied, especially sincea) the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr has not submitted any effective proof that Arthur Levy’s bank account has been closed (letter of termination etc.) – this means that the business relationship with the Sparkasse has not yet been terminated.
b) the claimant only became aware of the existence of the account in November 2019
c) according to the federal study “Social Impact Fund” commissioned by the Federal Government (Schalast und Partner Rechtsanwälte, 2021, cf. dormant assets ), the Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr was obliged to use all communication channels to locate the descendant of the account holder Arthur Levy entitled to inherit before the end of the limitation period
d) the plea of the statute of limitations due to the misinformation about the existence of the account (before filing the action) constitutes a breach of good faith (unlawful).
The judges at the Hamm Higher Regional Court: Elmar Lemken (center), Dr. Telg gen.
Kortmann, Dr. Züllighoven Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung / May 7, 2025
SA henchmen raided Simson Cohen’s property at Hoher Graben 2 in Hagen(now Volme Haus, NRW) in the 1930s, demolished the furniture, threw the piano into the Volme, shot the dog and brutally beat up Simson Cohen. He then had to flee with his family to Bern in Switzerland, where he died of his injuries from the attack. The property at Hoher Graben 2 was taken over by the city of Hagen (expropriation) and sold to private individuals via straw men.
Due to the Allied military laws, after the end of the Second World War, the compensation office of the city of Hagen conducted negotiations with the heirs of Simson Cohen regarding compensation for the expropriated property. The heirs were represented by the Jewish community of Dortmund. However, a legally valid settlement was not reached; the necessary written approval from the Hagen city council is still missing today. The leading historian of the city of Hagen was also unable to help in this regard. The descendant of Simson Cohen, who lives in Switzerland, will therefore be filing an action for information in order to find out whether the written consent of the city council has been obtained.
Another legal case pending before the Higher Regional Court of Hamm (NRW) concerns the expropriation of the bank balance of Arthur Levy, son-in-law of Simson Cohen, at the former Sparkasse Hagen during the Nazi era in the 1930s (now Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr). Both Simson Cohen and Arthur Levy had a bank account at Sparkasse Hagen. Simson Cohen also had a securities portfolio, which was also expropriated. This legal case is also related to the study on dormant assets (Social Impact Fund) commissioned by the German government. There it becomes apparent that the German savings banks have not sufficiently fulfilled their obligation to keep records of dormant assets (so-called “dormant accounts”); all communication channels must be used by a bank to locate descendants of account holders who are entitled to inherit. It can be assumed that there are still several billion euros in “dormant accounts” in Germany. However, the Sparkasse Hagen (zu Volme und Ruhr) never made any inquiries about possible descendants of Arthur Levy who could make claims to the account balance. Even after being contacted by the descendant of Arthur Levy, Sparkasse an Volme und Ruhr has made no effort to enter into discussions with the descendant.
In connection with the aforementioned study on dormant assets, there are currently attempts by the savings banks under the Freedom of Information Act (IFG) NRW to no longer have to report on personal accounts. However, the experts consulted reject these amendments to the IFG NRW.
The case of Simson Cohen and Arthur Levy shows emphatically that National Socialist injustice must always be justiciable and that the German state still has a duty to carry out educational work in connection with the expropriation of Jewish assets. Justice has no expiry date.
The Federal Republic of Germany has always attached particular priority to making moral and financial reparations for the injustices committed by the Nazi regime. Words must now be followed by deeds.
An article published in the Westfalenschau on August 9, 1995 revealed that the Sparkasse Hagen (Sparkasse an Vollme und Ruhr) kept historically valuable and explosive files on the expropriation of accounts of Jewish Hagen residents in its archives.
The Sparkasse Hagen was therefore asked to inspect these files. Access has not yet been granted. Sparkasse Hagen has even applied to the Arnsberg Administrative Court not to have to hand over the files in accordance with the IFG NRW (Sparkasse Hagen application), arguing, among other things, that the request for the files to be handed over is not precise enough (requirement of certainty) and that the customer data of the Jewish account holders is protected by banking secrecy.
Such an argument is completely incomprehensible and is a mockery of the Jewish victims of expropriation during the Nazi era. Both the Jewish account holders and the heirs have an interest in complete transparency as to what happened to the spoliated assets, as well as an interest in appropriate compensation. Banking secrecy cannot be applied to these cases!
It is not enough to celebrate the survivors once a year. The beneficiaries of the murders are among us and the OLG decides as in a warranty case. Christoph Heubner, Executive Vice President International Auschwitz Committeesays to BILD:
“The behavior of Sparkasse Hagen and its responsible management is scandalous.”
2 Responses
Ich finde es skandalös, wie sich die Banken der Verantwortung entziehen. Es darf nicht sein, dass Gelder aus der Nazizeit, nicht dem rechtmässigen Erben, zugesprochen wird.
Der vorliegende Fall, in dem sich die Sparkasse Hagen-Volme weigert, das Vermögen eines jüdischen Bürgers beziehungsweise seiner Erben herauszugeben, stellt einen beispiellosen Vorgang dar, der sowohl moralisch als auch rechtlich in höchstem Maße bedenklich ist. Nach der herrschenden Meinung in der Rechtsprechung könnte ein solches Verhalten durchaus als banden- und gewerbsmäßiger Betrug qualifiziert werden. Die Sparkasse war nie Eigentümerin dieses Vermögens, sondern lediglich dessen Verwalterin und Besitzerin. Eigentümer waren und sind allein die ursprünglichen Vermögensinhaber – in diesem Fall die jüdischen Großeltern – sowie ihre Erben und heutigen Anspruchsteller.
Rechtliche Grundsätze sind klar definiert
Ein Besitzer, der ohne Rechtsgrund in den Besitz fremden Eigentums gelangt, kann nicht durch bloßen Zeitablauf oder Nutzung zum Eigentümer werden. Dies gilt insbesondere dann, wenn dem Eigentümer das Eigentum nie wirksam entzogen wurde und die Erben zu keinem Zeitpunkt über den Verbleib oder die Existenz des Vermögens informiert wurden. Die rechtlichen Grundlagen dazu sind im deutschen Zivilrecht klar geregelt. Insbesondere § 985 BGB verleiht dem Eigentümer einen Herausgabeanspruch gegen den unrechtmäßigen Besitzer.
Finanzielle Dimension und Eigenkapitalrendite
Laut Schätzungen könnte der heutige Wert des einbehaltenen Vermögens – unter Berücksichtigung der jahrzehntelangen Nutzung durch die Sparkasse als Eigenkapital – auf etwa fünf Millionen Euro angewachsen sein. Sparkassen erwirtschaften auf ihr Eigenkapital regelmäßig Renditen von 20 bis 40 Prozent. Dieses Vermögen wurde somit über Jahrzehnte hinweg ertragreich genutzt – allerdings ohne jegliche Information oder Beteiligung der rechtmäßigen Eigentümer.
Moralische Verantwortung und gesellschaftliche Folgen
Dass eine öffentliche Institution wie eine Sparkasse – die in besonderer Weise dem Gemeinwohl verpflichtet ist – eine solche Haltung einnimmt, ist ein Skandal größten Ausmaßes. Besonders schwer wiegt dieser Fall in Anbetracht der historischen Verantwortung gegenüber jüdischen Mitbürgerinnen und Mitbürgern in Deutschland. Die oft zitierte Staatsräson zum Schutz jüdischen Lebens in Deutschland wird ad absurdum geführt, wenn genau diese Menschen nach Jahrzehnten noch immer um ihr Eigentum betrogen werden.
Aufruf zur Aufarbeitung und rechtlichen Wiedergutmachung
Die Sparkasse Hagen-Volme wäre gut beraten, das Vermögen unverzüglich an die rechtmäßigen Erben herauszugeben. Es wäre angemessen, dieses Vermögen rückwirkend als geduldetes Darlehen zu bewerten und es mit mindestens neun Prozent Zinsen zu verzinsen. Gleichzeitig sollten betroffene Bürgerinnen und Bürger künftig dafür sorgen, dass ihre Erben durch ein klar formuliertes Testament bei Amtsgerichten benannt sind – einschließlich aktueller Kontaktdaten und gegebenenfalls eines Nacherben.
Vertrauensverlust und Konsequenzen
Es stellt sich die grundsätzliche Frage, wie viele Sparkassen noch immer über namenlose Vermögenswerte verfügen und es versäumt haben, die rechtmäßigen Eigentümer zu ermitteln. Ein solches Verhalten beschädigt das Vertrauen in öffentlich-rechtliche Kreditinstitute nachhaltig. Es wäre ein deutliches Signal, wenn Bürgerinnen und Bürger überdenken würden, ob ihre Gelder bei Institutionen gut aufgehoben sind, die in solchen Fällen keine Bereitschaft zur Aufarbeitung zeigen.
Schlussgedanken
Dieser Fall verdeutlicht auf schmerzhafte Weise eine Doppelmoral in unserem Land. Einerseits wird mit Worten beteuert, wie wichtig die Aufarbeitung der Vergangenheit und der Schutz jüdischen Lebens ist, andererseits erleben Betroffene weiterhin strukturelles Unrecht. Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass die Betroffenen zu Lebzeiten Gerechtigkeit erfahren und nicht erneut einer kaltherzigen Verwaltungspraxis zum Opfer fallen.
In diesem Sinne,
mit der Hoffnung auf Einsicht, rechtliche Klarheit und moralische Größe
M.