Whatever this is - this is something

12. März 2026

Estab­li­shing, what Fin­te­le­gram is:

Bar­clays also told “Tages­schau” it had clo­sed an account ope­ned by alle­ged scam­mers. The other banks did not com­ment, said the report, citing ban­king secrecy, but insis­ted that they com­ply ful­ly with the law.

Sources insi­de one of the banks repor­ted­ly told the news pro­gram that men from Lit­hua­nia and Roma­nia had ope­ned the bank accounts on behalf of the alle­ged scam­mers and had indi­ca­ted “soft­ware dis­tri­bu­ti­on” or “con­sul­ting ser­vices” as the natu­re of their business.

Publi­shing infor­ma­ti­on about a shado­wy industry
The com­pa­nies tar­ge­ted by Ger­man and Aus­tri­an poli­ce have been dis­cus­sed at length for the past year on a web­site cal­led Fintelegram.com, which focu­ses on the­se and other online tra­ding net­works in gre­at detail.

The Times of Isra­el con­ta­c­ted Fin­te­le­gram to under­stand more about it and why it was focu­sing on this mate­ri­al. The site was foun­ded by Aus­tri­an inter­net entre­pre­neur Wer­ner Boehm. His busi­ness asso­cia­te Elfrie­de Sixt has laun­ched a sis­ter com­pa­ny cal­led the Euro­pean Funds Reco­very Initia­ti­ve (EFRI), which says it hel­ps vic­tims of online tra­ding scams reco­ver their money.

src: click (Times of Israel)

Throughout the rest of 2018, Shalon and Tzor­ya fought. Tzor­ya lea­ked dama­ging infor­ma­ti­on about the fraud and its under­ly­ing ope­ra­ti­ons to a Vienna-based web­site cal­led Fin­Te­le­gram News, which publis­hes lea­ked infor­ma­ti­on on finan­cial scam­mers. In return Shalon dis­patched a key lieu­ten­ant, an Israe­li named Gal Barak, to Vien­na with a coun­ter­of­fer for FinTelegram’s publis­her, Wer­ner Böhm, accord­ing to an account Böhm later gave poli­ce. In a mee­ting at Le Méri­di­en Vien­na hotel, Barak pro­po­sed that the remai­ning Tra­do­lo­gic part­ners set up a €3 mil­li­on ($3.5 mil­li­on) invest­ment fund over which Böhm would have con­trol, with the idea that he use the money to invest in star­tups across Euro­pe on behalf of the group. The next day, Böhm, Shalon and Barak got on a Whats­App chat to con­firm the details. “I know Gal would told you, when we are part­ners and do things we share all pro­blems and help each other no mat­ter what,” Shalon told the publis­her, accord­ing to a copy of the encryp­ted chat seen by Businessweek.

Shalon told Böhm the deal came with no strings atta­ched, but he’d been more trans­pa­rent with Len­hoff the mon­th befo­re. “I have also budget…big one to kill this bs sto­ries,” Shalon told him in a Whats­App chat cap­tu­red by poli­ce. Shalon wasn’t the only one hiding his real moti­ve: Böhm by then was coope­ra­ting with the Aus­tri­an poli­ce, who secret­ly lis­tened in on both the hotel ren­dez­vous and a later meet­up at a beer hall, accord­ing to inter­views and poli­ce documents.

src: click (Bloom­berg)

Fin­Te­le­gram ges­tern (!) zum RBI/Oschadbank Skan­dal (zum Ver­gleich: Der Hurendrecks-Standard heu­te):

RAIFFEISEN’S CASH PIPELINE: Is Austria’s Most Poli­ti­cal Bank the Silent Engi­ne of Ukraine’s Shadow Finance?

[…]

This is a follow-up to FinTelegram’s initi­al report: “Oschadbank’s Mis­sing $82M: Did Kyiv’s Shadow Finan­ce Just Get Caught in Buda­pest?” (11 March 2026). Rea­ders are advi­sed to review that report for full case background.

Raiff­ei­sen Bank Inter­na­tio­nal (RBI)confirmed it has a long-standing con­tract with Ukraine’s Oschad­bank to phy­si­cal­ly trans­port for­eign cash across EU ter­ri­to­ry — a prac­ti­ce that, Bloom­berg con­firms, runs wee­kly and has moved over $900 mil­li­on and €420 mil­li­on into Ukrai­ne in the first two mon­ths of 2026 alo­ne. RBI is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly under ECB sanc­tion pres­su­re for its Rus­sia busi­ness, has been fined by Austria’s FMA for AML fail­u­res, and is embed­ded in Austria’s ÖVP poli­ti­cal net­work. The com­pli­an­ce ques­ti­ons this rai­ses are not aca­de­mic. They are urgent.

src: click

KEY FINDINGS
- RBI con­fir­med to mul­ti­ple out­lets it ope­ra­tes a “long-standing” bank­no­te dis­tri­bu­ti­on busi­ness across Euro­pe — citing Aus­tri­an bank secrecy law to avoid dis­clo­sing spe­ci­fics of the Oschad­bank contract.

- The ship­ment ori­gi­na­ted from RBI’s Vien­na head­quar­ters under a for­mal inter­na­tio­nal con­tract with Oschad­bank — con­fir­med by Ukraine’s Natio­nal Bank and Oschadbank’s own legal counsel.

- Accord­ing to Hun­ga­ri­an For­eign Minis­ter Szi­j­jár­tó, over $900M, €420M, and 146 kg of gold tran­sited Hun­ga­ry into Ukrai­ne in just the first two mon­ths of 2026 — imply­ing RBI’s pipe­line is sub­stan­ti­al and systematic.

- RBI is the lar­gest Wes­tern bank still ope­ra­ting in Rus­sia. Its Rus­si­an pro­fits excee­ded tho­se of all other for­eign banks com­bi­ned in Q1Q3 2024, per Bank­Track and B4Ukraine.

- The ECB has for­mal­ly orde­red RBI to acce­le­ra­te its Rus­sia exit; the US Tre­a­su­ry has war­ned RBI that access to the US finan­cial sys­tem could be restric­ted due to its Rus­sia dealings.

- Austria’s FMA fined RBI €2.7 mil­li­on in 2018 for AML fail­u­res, and ope­ned a fur­ther KYC inves­ti­ga­ti­on in 2024 into RBI’s cor­re­spon­dent ban­king. RBI has also been inves­ti­ga­ted over its role in the $967M Magnitsky-linked laun­de­ring scheme.

- The Raiff­ei­sen ban­king group has his­to­ri­cal­ly clo­se struc­tu­ral ties to Austria’s ÖVP — the domi­nant par­ty in the Aus­tri­an government — rai­sing ques­ti­ons about poli­ti­cal pro­tec­tion of RBI’s com­pli­an­ce exposure.
Hun­ga­ry was evi­dent­ly awa­re of the­se regu­lar cash con­voys — minis­ter Lázár’s own admis­si­on that the sei­zu­re was deli­be­ra­te implies pri­or know­ledge of the pipeline.

ANALYSIS: RBI, AUSTRIA, AND THE ARCHITECTURE OF PERMISSIBLE OPACITY

RBI’s respon­se to press inqui­ries was a stu­dy in deli­be­ra­te mini­ma­lism. To the Kyiv Post, spo­kes­man Chris­toph Danz con­fir­med RBI “ope­ra­tes a long-standing busi­ness invol­ving the dis­tri­bu­ti­on of bank­no­tes across Euro­pe” while citing Aus­tri­an bank secrecy as the bar­ri­er to fur­ther com­ment. To Bloom­berg, RBI sta­ted its employees were not invol­ved in the con­voy — tech­ni­cal­ly distancing Vien­na from the phy­si­cal ope­ra­ti­on while not deny­ing the con­trac­tu­al rela­ti­ons­hip. To Telex, it noted it “regu­lar­ly coope­ra­tes with cen­tral banks, the rele­vant aut­ho­ri­ties, and dis­tri­bu­tors” and claims to sup­ply “exten­si­ve infor­ma­ti­on” about tra­ding volu­mes and desti­na­ti­on coun­tries to aut­ho­ri­ties. If true, this means Aus­tri­an regu­la­tors have been brie­fed on the sca­le and fre­quen­cy of the­se cash runs. The ques­ti­on then is not whe­ther they knew — it is whe­ther they acted.

RBI’s com­pli­an­ce record com­pounds this con­cern dra­ma­ti­cal­ly. The Aus­tri­an FMA has fined RBI twice for AML fai­lings, the most recent for­mal inves­ti­ga­ti­on ope­ned in 2024 tar­ge­ting KYC defi­ci­en­ci­es in cor­re­spon­dent ban­king — pre­cise­ly the busi­ness line covering the Oschad­bank con­tract. Wil­liam Browder’s Her­mi­ta­ge Capi­tal iden­ti­fied RBI’s pre­de­ces­sor enti­ty as a con­du­it for $634 mil­li­on of Magnitsky-linked funds. The OCCRP docu­men­ted RBI’s role in the Troi­ka Laund­ro­mat. The­se are not peri­pheral alle­ga­ti­ons — they con­sti­tu­te a docu­men­ted pat­tern of AML per­mis­si­ve­ness toward post-Soviet finan­cial flows.

The Rus­sia dimen­si­on makes the pic­tu­re even more troub­ling. While RBI has been publicly obli­ged by the ECB to wind down its Rus­si­an ope­ra­ti­ons — and under thre­at from the US Tre­a­su­ry of being cut off from dol­lar clea­ring — it has simul­ta­ne­ous­ly been pro­fi­t­ing in Rus­sia at a rate that out­pa­ced all other Wes­tern banks com­bi­ned. A bank mana­ging a sub­stan­ti­al, regu­lar phy­si­cal cash pipe­line into Ukrai­ne while simul­ta­ne­ous­ly run­ning Russia’s lar­gest Wes­tern ban­king ope­ra­ti­on occu­p­ies a uni­que dual posi­ti­on in the geo­po­li­tics of the con­flict. It is the finan­cial insti­tu­ti­on most deeply embed­ded in both sides of the war. Com­pli­an­ce regu­la­tors across the EU should be asking what, pre­cise­ly, RBI’s role is in the broa­der move­ment of war-related finan­cial flows.

The poli­ti­cal con­text in Aus­tria can­not be igno­red. The Raiff­ei­sen ban­king net­work — an inter­lo­cking struc­tu­re of regio­nal coope­ra­ti­ve banks that feed up into RBI — has long been descri­bed as the finan­cial arm of the ÖVP. Raiffeisen’s regio­nal banks have his­to­ri­cal­ly pro­vi­ded pre­fe­ren­ti­al finan­cing to ÖVP-aligned busi­nes­ses and poli­ti­cal figu­res; the BUWOG scan­dal impli­ca­ted Raiff­ei­sen­lan­des bank Ober­ös­ter­reich in a poli­ti­cal­ly sen­si­ti­ve pri­va­ti­sa­ti­on deal. This struc­tu­ral ent­an­gle­ment rai­ses a legi­ti­ma­te ques­ti­on: does Austria’s regu­la­to­ry leni­en­cy toward RBI’s AML expo­sure reflect the inde­pen­dence of the FMA and the WKS­tA, or the poli­ti­cal influ­ence of a bank that is, in effect, co-terminus with the ruling party?

Final­ly, the ques­ti­on of Hungary’s pri­or know­ledge must be addres­sed. Minis­ter Lázár’s admis­si­on that the March 5 sei­zu­re was deli­be­ra­te, com­bi­ned with Szijjártó’s detail­ed sta­tis­tics on pri­or cash tran­sits, stron­gly implies that Buda­pest was not sur­pri­sed by the con­voy — it was wai­t­ing for it. If Hun­ga­ri­an aut­ho­ri­ties had data on volu­mes and fre­quen­cy, the ques­ti­on ari­ses whe­ther RBI’s self-reported “exten­si­ve infor­ma­ti­on” flows to regu­la­tors cros­sed natio­nal intel­li­gence bounda­ries. Were Hun­ga­ri­an aut­ho­ri­ties brie­fed by Aus­tri­an coun­ter­parts on this pipeline?

CONCLUSION
RBI is not a pas­si­ve con­du­it in this sto­ry. As the ori­gi­na­ting insti­tu­ti­on of a wee­kly, multi-hundred-million-euro phy­si­cal cash pipe­line — ope­ra­ting under Aus­tri­an bank secrecy, under ongo­ing AML inves­ti­ga­ti­on, and in a bank group struc­tu­ral­ly ent­wi­ned with the Aus­tri­an government — it is a cen­tral com­pli­an­ce actor. The $82 mil­li­on sei­zed in Buda­pest is the visi­ble tip of a finan­cial ice­berg. The EU’s AML archi­tec­tu­re was not desi­gned to be defea­ted by armou­red trucks and bank secrecy law. Austria’s regu­la­tors, the ECB, and the Euro­pean Ban­king Aut­ho­ri­ty need to ans­wer whe­ther RBI’s bank­no­te dis­tri­bu­ti­on busi­ness has been sub­ject to the same scru­ti­ny as its Rus­sia ope­ra­ti­ons — and if not, why not.

WHISTLEBLOWER APPEAL
Fin­Te­le­gram is see­king insi­ders with direct know­ledge of RBI’s bank­no­te dis­tri­bu­ti­on ope­ra­ti­ons, its con­trac­tu­al arran­ge­ments with Ukrai­ni­an sta­te banks, and its inter­nal AML sign-off pro­ces­ses for the­se cash ship­ments. We are also see­king infor­ma­ti­on from cur­rent or for­mer employees of Austria’s FMA or WKS­tA regar­ding regu­la­to­ry decisi­ons on RBI’s Eas­tern Euro­pean cash flows. Do you have know­ledge of the poli­ti­cal dimen­si­on of Aus­tri­an regu­la­to­ry leni­en­cy toward RBI? Do you know who the bene­fi­cial owners of the­se cash con­voys ulti­mate­ly are? Report secu­re­ly and anony­mous­ly via Whistle42 — FinTelegram’s encryp­ted whist­leb­lower plat­form. Your infor­ma­ti­on is protected. 

Las­sen sie mich raten, der Rus­se hat jetzt Fin­te­le­gram übernommen.

Zwei­te Fra­ge, wie bescheu­ert müs­sen die Öster­rei­chi­schen Diens­te sein, dass sie dem Stan­dard heu­te auf­tra­gen das “clean” zu schreiben.

Sam­ma kom­plett durch?

edit: Noch mehr “Der Rus­se hat jetzt auch Fin­Te­le­gram über­nom­men” Reporting:

https://fintelegram.com/oschadbanks-missing-82m-did-kyivs-shadow-finance-just-get-caught-in-budapest/

Ukraine’s Oschad­bank — the state-owned natio­nal savings bank — insists the ship­ment was rou­ti­ne. Sin­ce Russia’s full-scale inva­si­on in Febru­a­ry 2022, Ukraine’s air­space clo­sure has for­ced banks to repa­tria­te for­eign cur­ren­cy by armou­red road con­voy rather than air freight or SWIFT trans­fer. Bloom­berg sources con­firm such runs occur weekly.

This explana­ti­on, howe­ver, does not sur­vi­ve basic AML scru­ti­ny. The FATF frame­work and EU’s 6AMLD are unam­bi­guous: when a legi­ti­ma­te finan­cial insti­tu­ti­on needs to move lar­ge sums of for­eign cur­ren­cy, the instru­ment of choice is a SWIFT inter­bank trans­fer, a cen­tral bank-to-central bank sett­le­ment, or at mini­mum a docu­men­ted cor­re­spon­dent ban­king arran­ge­ment — not a phy­si­cal cash con­voy. The ques­ti­on that neit­her Oschad­bank nor its apo­lo­gists have ans­we­red is ele­men­ta­ry: why cash, not wire?

src: click

edit: Whist­le, whist­le while you work…

Ukrai­ni­an inves­ti­ga­ti­ve jour­na­list Ana­to­liy Shariy, citing sources, alle­ged the funds did not belong to Oschad­bank at all, but to “very spe­ci­fic peop­le” — figu­res embed­ded in the Kyiv poli­ti­cal estab­lish­ment with links to Brussels. Hun­ga­ri­an For­eign Minis­ter Péter Szi­j­jár­tó was even blun­ter, rai­sing the spect­re of a “Ukrai­ni­an war mafia.” The­se are alle­ga­ti­ons, not pro­ven facts — but the pre­sence of an intel­li­gence gene­ral at the wheel of a cash truck worth $82 mil­li­on deman­ds a credi­ble counter-narrative that has not materialised.

The geo­po­li­ti­cal con­text is equal­ly tel­ling. Hun­ga­ry sei­zed the con­voy on the same day Zelen­sky threa­tened Orbán. Buda­pest admit­ted the ope­ra­ti­on was deli­be­ra­te reta­lia­ti­on for the Druzh­ba pipe­line suspension.

[…]

CONCLUSION
Whe­ther the $82 mil­li­on sei­zed in Buda­pest is war-chest fun­ding for Ukrai­ni­an olig­archs, legi­ti­ma­te Oschad­bank liqui­di­ty, or some­thing mur­kier, the case expo­ses a cri­ti­cal gap in Europe’s finan­cial crime archi­tec­tu­re: bil­li­ons in phy­si­cal cash are moving through EU ter­ri­to­ry without trig­ge­ring the over­sight mecha­nisms that SWIFT trans­fers would auto­ma­ti­cal­ly gene­ra­te. The lega­li­ty of Hungary’s sei­zu­re remains con­tes­ted, but the AML ques­ti­ons rai­sed are ent­i­re­ly legi­ti­ma­te — and they deser­ve serious ans­wers, not diplo­ma­tic deflec­tion and media silence.

WHISTLEBLOWER APPEAL
Do you have infor­ma­ti­on about cash trans­fers bet­ween Ukrai­ni­an banks and Euro­pean finan­cial insti­tu­ti­ons? Do you know who the bene­fi­cial owners of the­se con­voys real­ly are? Fin­Te­le­gram urges insi­ders, bank employees, com­pli­an­ce offi­cers, or government offi­cials with rele­vant know­ledge to come for­ward. Sub­mit infor­ma­ti­on secu­re­ly and anony­mous­ly via Whistle42 — our encryp­ted whist­leb­lower plat­form. Your infor­ma­ti­on pro­tects Euro­pean finan­cial integrity.

src: click









Hinterlasse eine Antwort