The billion-dollar grave of the insurance industry and German entrepreneurs are liable to the bitter end – of their possible insolvency, how the common sales practice of the insurance and finance industry lures entrepreneurs and their businesses into the insolvency trap

The billion-dollar grave of the insurance industry and German entrepreneurs are liable to the bitter end – their possible insolvency. how the common sales practice of the insurance and finance industry lures entrepreneurs and their businesses into the insolvency trap and, if necessary, even turns them into criminals


Who would have thought it? Politics brought it to light in 2001:

The renaissance of the company pension scheme (bAV) was born as an unintended pregnancy of Uncle Riester’s “small pension savings” as a result of the amendment of the Company Pensions Act, which obliges employers to set up a company pension scheme.


The insurance industry and the financial sector reacted promptly:

Similar to its sales motivation after the fall of the Berlin Wall, it conjured up countless so-called “occupational pension specialists” out of a hat and declared company owners and entrepreneurs throughout Germany to be the favoured target group. a new market worth billions has opened up as a result of the legislation.

And the insurance industry was successful:

Although on average only about 7% of employees made use of the offer of direct insurance, Pensionskasse & Co., several billions of employee salary components were collected in the last five years.

Nor did union-owned pension plans fare better in employee consultations. Gottlob, as the current jurisdiction of the labor court Stuttgart and the commentary of the highest responsible federal labor judge Dr. Reinecke now brings to light: the used common tariffs of the insurers – burdened by costs for the distribution – give according to current jurisdiction the enterprises the liability opposite their employees for exactly these costs.

The liability risk of the entrepreneur is extended by the saved taxes and social security contributions due to the legal invalidity of the contract.

In the case of companies with 50 employees who have made use of the pension scheme, which makes sense in itself, we are talking about around 250,000. This is a considerable amount, which initially forces a balance sheet provision and makes the house bank think about the assessment of the company in question in terms of Basel II.

So the employees inquiring by lawyer representation in the penal code look (let), threaten the boss also a criminal charge. This is because, as a fiduciary custodian of his employee’s wages, the employer may be guilty of embezzlement and withholding wages.

The first preliminary proceedings have already been initiated (e.g. Düsseldorf public prosecutor’s office, AZ: 90 Js 2833/06).

The question now arises as to how this situation could arise: Pension products in the form of long-term investments (here in particular by insurance companies and their partner companies) are sold by sales representatives of the insurers and insurance brokers, who are financed by commissions. The commissions are paid by the customer through parts of his contributions to the pension product. This is a common procedure (so-called “Zillmerung”), on which the Federal Supreme Court has already commented.

It must therefore be questioned why the sales interests of the insurance industry, regardless of losses to their customers, do not support millions of employees in the cause they promise in full-bodied advertising statements: “well provided for in old age!” If the legislator, together with Riester, Rürup and Co., had put the pension interests of the citizens of this country ahead of the promised returns of the shareholders of financial service providers based in the same country, the current situation of the companies would be easier to clarify.

Since presumably 90% of all so-called “independent” occupational pension consultancies are controlled by the interests of the insurance industry, no objective correction of the desolate situation of small and medium-sized enterprises can be expected from this side either.

The opportunity for the entrepreneur remains solely to seek a truly independent advisor. Who suggests workable solutions to him and generates the financing from the liability of his tax advisor, insurance broker or other advisors who have advised him oh so “free of charge”; Then he is rid of his costs….



Joint publication of:

Ralph C. Kiening (Management Consultant bAV) Willy-Lessing-Strasse 12, 96047 Bamberg Phone: 0951 / 20 86 045 Fax: 09543 / 418 481

Johannes Fiala (Lawyer) De-la-Paz-Strasse 37, 80639 Munich Phone: 089 / 17 90 900 Fax: 089 / 17 90 90 70

Our office in Munich

You will find our office at Fasolt-Strasse 7 in Munich, very close to Schloss Nymphenburg. Our team consists of highly motivated attorneys who are available for all the needs of our clients. In special cases, our law firm cooperates with selected experts to represent your interests in the best possible way.

About the author

Dr. Johannes Fiala Dr. Johannes Fiala

Dr. Johannes Fiala has been working for more than 25 years as a lawyer and attorney with his own law firm in Munich. He is intensively involved in real estate, financial law, tax and insurance law. The numerous stages of his professional career enable him to provide his clients with comprehensive advice and to act as a lawyer in the event of disputes.
»More about Dr. Johannes Fiala

On these pages, Dr. Fiala provides information on current legal and economic topics as well as on current political changes that are of social and/or corporate relevance.

Arrange your personal appointment with us.

Make an appointment / call back service

You are already receiving legal advice and would like a second opinion? In this case please contact Dr. Fiala directly via the following link.

Obtain a second legal opinion

(The first phone call is a free get-to-know-you conversation; without consulting. You will learn what we can do for you & what we need from you in terms of information, documents for a qualified consultation.)