The savings bank break-in in Gelsenkirchen continues to raise questions about security and personal responsibility. Who is to blame for the loss?
The break-in at the Sparkasse Gelsenkirchen-Buer led to significant financial losses for hundreds of locker customers – including Joachim Wagner, whose story is described in the article. There are two main perspectives in the comments: Many users criticize the savings bank and accuse it of inadequate security and insufficient information about insured amounts. In contrast, other readers emphasize the responsibility of the victims, who, in their opinion, should have provided sufficient precautions and self-insurance. The question of whether the state should pay for such damage is also controversial.
Discussion on savings bank security
Table of Contents
Around 55 percent of readers question the security measures. Some accuse the bank of negligence and insufficient risk disclosure, as the case of Joachim Wagner described in the article illustrates. The argument is repeatedly raised that savings bank customers should have been more clearly informed about the insured amounts and security standards when concluding the contract. Many criticize that liability is limited and feel that the Sparkasse’s communication during the crisis is inadequate. Nevertheless, some also see a share of responsibility on those affected.
“If the savings bank is not proven to be negligent, it will be left empty-handed or the bank will be liable up to the insured amount.” To the original comment
“I checked this at my bank. It explicitly states that the safe deposit box is only insured up to €10,250. Regardless of whether the vault was state of the art, that’s something the courts have to decide, I unfortunately see a fair amount of complicity on the part of those affected. I also can’t fully understand the constant criticism of the bank’s information policy. An extremely large number of safe deposit boxes were cracked, everything was in disarray. First of all, the bank was certainly not allowed in because the police had only traces “The chaos had to be sorted out first. Criticism of the bank because of the state of the art is perhaps justified, but I would expect that all aspects would be examined correctly.” To the original comment
“Anyone who doesn’t insure valuables against loss will probably have to live with the possible consequences. Even if safe deposit boxes have previously been considered very safe and will probably continue to be so in terms of the mere probability of them being broken into. Concentrating your entire retirement provision in one place without insurance doesn’t make much sense.” To the original comment
“The savings bank should have stuck notes in the compartments saying ‘only insures up to €10,000’ – that was the basic mistake.” To the original comment
Acceptance of personal responsibility
For 14 percent of those commenting, individual precaution is the focus. They emphasize that every customer is responsible for adequately securing their property – also in view of the risks that the savings bank break-in makes visible in the article. The discussion addresses the importance of additional insurance and criticizes the fact that many victims have not correctly assessed their risks. Commentators are convinced that precaution and control over insurance conditions are essential.
“Basic rule – nobody is interested in ME becoming rich. So be careful when choosing where to invest or store assets and how to secure them twice. Trust is completely out of place here.” To the original comment
“A safe deposit box is certainly the right place to store gold. But then I just have to read the insurance conditions or do some research. I had to increase the insurance sum myself after the massive increase in the price of gold. That’s a small double-digit euro amount per year. Do you insure cell phones and refrigerators, your assets?” To the original comment
“If I rent a safe deposit box, I am aware from the bank’s business documents how much value I can deposit in the safe deposit box or how much additional insurance I need.” To the original comment
“Yes, that’s how it is. If I save on insurance, it can be expensive. If I underinsure a property, I can only expect this amount in the event of damage.” Go to the original comment
Criticism of victim behavior and insurance
Over twelve percent of users assign responsibility for the damage caused directly to the victims. From their point of view, those affected like Joachim Wagner, whose story is described in the article, should have taken care of comprehensive insurance protection or a safer investment in a timely manner. The debate is characterized by a mixture of compassion and clear remonstrances towards those affected regarding risk assessment and investment decisions.
“What frightens me is the constant statement about lost retirement provision. Don’t people inform themselves? Invest all their money in gold coins and store them without interest? That alone cost the man thousands of euros; he could probably have had twice as much. And all that in a safe deposit.” To the original comment
“Why complain? On the one hand you don’t put money in the locker, on the other hand he knew that the lockers are only insured for 10 tds. Sorry, but your own stupidity.” To the original comment
“He probably has proof of purchase. And 50k is fictitious, months ago 20k. Or would have, would have, bicycle chain. A locker because of 10 ducats.” To the original comment
“I actually feel a bit sorry for the man. At least it’s an example that I can understand after others have already reported cash sums of 300k and more. The only reproach he can make is why didn’t he insure it accordingly?” To the original comment
Skepticism towards compensation and the state
Six percent of the comments take a skeptical stance towards the idea that the state should pay for the damage caused by the burglary. They criticize possible compensation from tax revenues and see this as a problematic precedent, as discussed in the article. The need for personal precautions and individually tailored insurance is also the focus of these contributions.
“I find it astonishing what assets are stored in safe deposit boxes in the poorest city in Germany. We will continue to read reports about the poor people who have all lost a fortune until the decision is made that they will be “compensated” by the city, the state or the federal government, i.e. by us taxpayers.” To the original comment
“I asked: Should the state, i.e. taxpayers, now pay for the damage? Just like in the flooded valley. He didn’t come up with the idea of adjusting the insurance coverage! Now complain, hoping the lawyer will save it. If that goes through, we can all cancel all of our insurance.” To the original comment
“The state takes 50,000 euros from me every year and I have to live with that, it should have distributed it better.” To the original comment
Miscellaneous
The remaining 13 percent of the comments cannot be clearly assigned to any of the other opinion camps. Here you will find individual opinions, side blows and thematically mixed contributions that do not represent a uniform point of view.
How do you see it – can you blindly trust savings banks or is personal responsibility mandatory?
Join the discussion!
“Crying with anger”: Savings bank victim talks about the moment his dreams were shattered
Have your say now
date: 2026-02-07 09:07:00
Related reading