What the Plaintiff is seeking from former DVAG agents — and how the path is protected.

1 · What the Plaintiff is looking for

The Plaintiff is looking for people who can report from their own perception — not second-hand. Areas in which submissions are particularly valuable:

• Training material from internal DVAG trainings (wealth-adviser academy, directorate conferences, online modules): typical linguistic and argumentation building blocks used in client conversations.
• Commission and remuneration models: bonus loans, charge-back reserve, target agreements, "uplift points". How do they affect the advisory situation?
• Pressure mechanisms: turnover targets, weekly counts, career-step pressure, advisory quotas. How do they affect the selection and recommendation of products?
• Practice of churning: when existing contracts are replaced by new ones — who triggers it, when, with what arguments?
• Coach / sparring-partner language: how was the topic of role, remuneration flow and tying to the Generali group discussed with clients?
• Exit experiences: payout of charge-back reserves, non-compete clauses, clawback of commissions, dispute with the local office.

Important: the Plaintiff does not evaluate vague impressions — concrete, traceable perceptions are needed, ideally with a timeframe ("between 2018 and 2022", "in connection with a directorate conference in spring 2023"). Anyone with legal concerns should obtain independent advice before submitting — for example via Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V. (initial consultation free of charge and confidential).

2 · Three confidentiality tiers

You decide for each submission how far your identity is carried. Three clearly separated tiers:

3 · Legal framework, factual

This page does not provide legal advice. It frames the existing legal situation and refers to independent contact points.

• Whistleblower Protection Act (HinSchG): in force since 02 July 2023. It protects persons who report violations in certain legal areas from employer retaliation — with reversal of the burden of proof: in the event of an adverse measure, the employer must prove that it is not connected to the report.
• BGH on the invalidity of post-contractual non-compete clauses without compensation for restraint: non-compete clauses in the wealth-adviser contract that apply for a long period without providing compensation for restraint are, under settled BGH case-law, invalid (cf. for example BGH judgment of 22 January 2016, a law-firm note on kanzleimitte.de).
• OLG Karlsruhe on charge-back reserves: under the OLG Karlsruhe line, retained charge-back reserves must be paid out after an agent's exit, where the contractual conditions are met. Concrete documentation of judgments is available, e.g. on versicherungsbote.de.
• Press-law protection of sources under § 53 StPO: in the case of journalistic publication of tips, there is a right to refuse testimony regarding the identity of the source.

We expressly recommend obtaining independent advice before any incriminating tip — for example via Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V., via the BaFin whistleblower office (for matters relevant to supervisory law) or via your own trusted lawyer.

4 · Naming the hurdles openly

We know that this step entails considerable concerns for former agents. Three concerns typically arise — and we frame them factually:

"I signed a confidentiality clause."

Confidentiality clauses in commercial-agent contracts protect business secrets, but they do not override statutory whistleblower protection rights (HinSchG) or press-law source protection (§ 53 StPO). We recommend obtaining independent advice before submitting — ideally via Whistleblower-Netzwerk e.V.

"A non-compete clause is being held against me."

Non-compete clauses that culpably refuse compensation for restraint or are temporally excessive are regularly classified as invalid in BGH case-law. An initial assessment by a trusted lawyer clarifies in the specific case whether the clause asserted actually applies.

"I am being threatened with commission clawback."

Commission clawbacks are subject to conditions under VVG and HGB case-law (in particular proper anti-cancellation efforts by the insurer pursuant to § 87a (3) HGB). A prior legal assessment helps here too — the OLG Karlsruhe line on charge-back reserves (see above) shows that not every clawback stands.

5 · Three parallel contact channels (in preparation)

To make taking the step out of the threshold possible, we are planning three parallel contact channels. Currently only the first is available:

1. Email (available): justiz@teslanow.de. Please use the subject "Ex-DVAG-Hinweis". If you wish to remain anonymous, use a throwaway address or the Tor browser.
2. Anonymous tip box (in preparation): GlobaLeaks-based open-source solution via a trusted NGO. Tor-reachable, no logs, no tracking. We will publish the link as soon as the box is in place.
3. First phone contact (in preparation): separate VoIP number with a mailbox announcement, outside the DVAG structure.

6 · What happens to your tip

• What we do: We review the tip internally. If it is of legal relevance, we consult with the Plaintiff's lawyers. If you have provided a return channel, we get back to you with a classification typically within 5–10 working days.
• What we do not do: No automatic contact with DVAG, no data sharing with third parties without your express consent, no public mention of your name or position without your release.
• How long it takes: Initial review 2–3 working days. For tips of legal relevance, full classification typically takes longer.

Send a tip → Back to the general witness appeal