Aargau court rules Senior citizen loses CHF 250,000 to fraudster - now she won't receive supplementary benefits
A 70-year-old woman from Aargau fell victim to an internet scam and lost 250,000 francs to a fake romance. She now receives no supplementary AHV benefits - the court considers her loss of assets to be self-inflicted.
No time? blue News summarizes for you
- A pensioner from Aargau transferred her entire assets to an online fraudster.
- The court ruled that the lost money still counts as her assets.
- The woman was warned about the fraud, but ignored several suspicious facts.
An Aargau pensioner who was the victim of an internet scam does not receive any supplementary benefits to her AHV. Although she lost all her assets through a so-called "romance scam", the Aargau Insurance Court considers the case to be self-inflicted.
The now 70-year-old woman had met a supposed partner on a dating platform. Over a period of months, she transferred around CHF 250,000 to him abroad - in the hope of a future together. But the man did not exist and the money was lost.
Money still counts as assets
After she was left penniless, the pensioner applied for supplementary benefits from the Social Insurance Institution (SVA) of the Canton of Aargau. However, her application was rejected: the CHF 250,000 would continue to be considered her assets. Only people with net assets of less than CHF 100,000 are entitled to supplementary benefits.
The Insurance Court confirmed this decision. According to the ruling, assets given as gifts continue to be considered property if they were given away without any legal obligation or consideration. This also applies to involuntary losses - provided gross negligence was involved.
Court sees clear warning signs
According to the court, the pensioner should have recognized the fraud. It points to several warning signs.
The transfers were made to accounts that were not in the name of the alleged partner. A bank employee warned her urgently about the first transaction and questioned her for an hour. Other banks refused the payments due to security concerns.
Despite these warnings, the woman continued to make payments. The court therefore classified her behavior as "grossly negligent" - and denied her access to state support.
The ruling is not yet legally binding.
