EDIT: The header of the english statement has been updated in the statement on the website of the group. The term confiscation has distinct legal meanings that could be confused and the way the term is often used in common language is inaccurate for the legal meaning. See @geissi@feddit.de s comment showing the legal distinction.
~~In 2024, Jewish money is once again being confiscated by a German bank:~~ Berliner Sparkasse freezes Jewish Voice account
On 25 March 2024, our account with the Berliner Sparkasse was frozen with immediate effect. In a letter, the Sparkasse informed us that it had taken this step as a precautionary measure and that we should submit numerous internal documents by 5 April to update our customer data. As a public corporation, the bank is bound by public law and may therefore not arbitrarily freeze accounts without providing an explanation, which it did not. It is also highly unusual that the required documents include a list of our members with their full names and addresses.
Why should this information be important to the Berliner Sparkasse? It sounds more like a question that might be asked by an intelligence service or the police, who have been politically persecuting us as a Jewish organisation for some time. Our previous account with the Bank for Social Economy was closed in 2019 because of our support for BDS. This happened after agitation by Israeli journalist Benjamin Weinthal and pressure from the Central Council of Jews in Germany.
This pressure and political persecution are increasing as Israel and its apartheid policies in the state of Israel and the West Bank, and now its genocidal policies in the Gaza Strip, lose support around the world. Germany is one of Israel"s last loyal allies, and the German state is co-operating with Israel"s apartheid and genocide, even though over 80% of the population does not support the German government"s policy.
The Palestine Congress will take place in Berlin in mid-April and will feature a wide range of international speakers, including the former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis. The closer the congress gets, the more intense the persecution becomes; for weeks, there has been shrill defamation from the tabloid media and local politicians, such as describing it as a "hate summit" for which "thousands of anti-Semites" will be coming to Berlin. Because the journalists can"t write anything factual about it, they try to delegitimise the congress through guilt by association.
However, because the organisers are independent of politics, the usual methods such as cancellation or denial of spaces do not work. The congress is financed by ticket sales and donations; we, the Jewish Voice, have made our account available for this purpose β which is why it has now been blocked. We will not be intimidated by this, even if we lose our account: Our position on genocide is derived from our Jewish values and is not dependent on financial resources. Our membership grows with every day and every act of repression. Anyone who is a member of our organisation knows it themselves. It is none of any bank"s business. We are taking legal action against the arbitrary, politically motivated freezing of our account, which is unacceptable in a democracy.
Tbf I am also curious what the specific legal reason is but really:
That is not true. No money has been confiscated. The account was temporarily frozen.
According to a statement by the bank they seem to be conducting a legitimacy check.
That is something banks can be obligated to do e.g. when there are indications for money laundering.
I'm not saying the bank is necessarily right here but the linked article here by the investigated organization itself is hardly unbiased.
At the time there was no news article available.
EDIT: the following only applies to the usage of the term in common language. It is not accurate in the legal sense, where the term has a distinctly different meaning from the term freezing A bank account being frozen can be referred to as confiscation though. It means that you loose the factual control over your property. When a teacher confiscates the phones of students to give them back at the end of the school day. Or when police confiscates all your electronics in a criminal investigation, only to give them back month later.
It is true that there currently is not the level of permanence that the term can also include. However it means that the organization is unable to operate and there is strong reason to believe their stance that this is done for politican reasons just shortly before they want to hold a conference.
I'm pretty sure that is neither true in English nor in German.
Those are two legally distinct measures.
For example many Russian accounts have been frozen in light of the Ukraine war but the money has explicitly not been confiscated.
See https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2024)759602
I'm not denying the impact on their operations and I have neither pro nor contra arguments as to whether this is politically motivated.
But I think that confiscated is factually wrong. And at least to me personally it seems deliberately chosen to invoke an image of Germany seizing Jewish property "once again" like the Nazis.
EDIT: The following is only referring to the usage in common used language. The legal distinction is as pointed out by @geissi@feddit.de and freezing in legal terms is different from confiscation.
The factual control over that property is taken away from the owner. That is confiscation (in the common used language not in legal terms). For any physical property that term is used directly in that sense. The term "freezing" for bank accounts has established in that sector but it remains valid to speak of confiscation as the factual control over that asset is seized from the owner.(in the common used language not in legal terms) For that is is irrespective of whether the recognized ownership has changed. I.e. if a police officer takes all the money out of your wallet and puts it in a safe at the police station it still has been confiscated from you, even if he gives you a letter stating it is still your money. You are denied access to it, until some decision has been reached by someone.
~~The only legal distinction here is that the bank is a regulated private or in this case public entity that is legally seperate from the executive, whereas the police is a direct executive organ.~~
Listen, there is a legal distinction between the two terms. I've provided a source.
If you disagree with that, please take it up with legislators and the courts.
It doesn't help your argument that you specifically point out that it applies to physical objects, which a bank account is not.
When i checked again the statement by the group has been updated, now using the term freezing in the bold part of the statement:
You are right that there could be a legal confusion around the term confiscation and the statement was updated probably to reflect the point you made about the legal meaning.
In the common usage both in English and German the term is broader what i argued for.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confiscation
Nobody said it was confiscated, youβre just making that up. The money is being seized according to the headline. While inside the article the word frozen is being used.
Just FYI, I literally quoted the text of the article at that time, which is also why nobody who disagreed with me disputed the wording.
Online outlets are known to change the wording of their articles, which seems to have happened here and OP also confirmed this.