'They paid me to spy!': Bombshell testimony 'exposes' Credit Suisse’s links to Nazi Party

Investigation into Credit Swiss/UBS and Nazi-Era Assets

Key Concepts:

• Nazi-Looted Assets: Funds and property stolen from Jewish individuals and families during the Nazi regime.
• Swiss Neutrality: Historical policy of Switzerland maintaining non-alignment in international conflicts, exploited during WWII to attract assets.
• Settlement Agreement (1999): An agreement reached in the 1990s intended to resolve claims related to dormant accounts held by Holocaust victims in Swiss banks.
• Ombuds Person: An independent intermediary tasked with facilitating communication and information exchange between parties.
• Injunction: A court order prohibiting a specific action.
• Gibson Dunn: The law firm representing UBS in the current legal proceedings.
• Simon Wiesenthal Center: A Jewish human rights organization dedicated to Holocaust remembrance and combating antisemitism.

I. Historical Context: Theft and Complicity

The testimony details a long history of financial wrongdoing linked to Credit Swiss (now UBS) and the Nazi regime. The speaker emphasizes that the Holocaust wasn’t a sudden event, but a gradual process beginning with theft – “Legalized theft. Bureaucratized theft.” – escalating to mass extermination. Between 400 and 550 billion dollars was stolen from the Jewish people. Jewish families, seeking refuge from persecution, turned to Swiss banks due to Switzerland’s proclaimed neutrality. However, this neutrality proved illusory, with accounts vanishing and records being systematically destroyed. The economic annihilation of Jewish communities was a prerequisite for the Holocaust, culminating in the murder of over 6 million people. The crime didn’t end with the war; stolen assets were not returned to survivors.

II. The 1999 Settlement and Subsequent Revelations

A settlement was reached in the 1990s, intended to provide truth, restitution, and closure. However, investigations following the settlement revealed that a “vast number” of Nazi-linked accounts and records were deliberately withheld, concealing billions in victim assets. This demonstrates a continued pattern of obstruction and a failure to fully account for the stolen wealth.

III. Current Legal Battle: Silencing Accountability

The core of the current issue revolves around UBS’s attempt to silence Jewish organizations investigating and speaking about the bank’s historical ties to the Nazi regime. UBS, through a motion before a federal court in New York, seeks a court order to “enjoin” (prohibit) the Simon Wiesenthal Center and over a dozen other Jewish organizations from researching, speaking, or publishing content related to the Holocaust, WWII, and Nazi persecution. This is framed not as an attempt to suppress truth, but as a “clarification” of the 1999 settlement agreement. Senator’s questioning reveals UBS initially represented they would not sue the Simon Wiesenthal Center, yet are actively pursuing this restrictive court order.

IV. Testimony and Contradictions

• Miss Levy (UBS Counsel): Maintains the motion is merely a clarification of the 1999 settlement agreement and does not seek to silence organizations. She confirms her office reviewed the proposed order and that her attorneys at Gibson Dunn requested it from Judge Corman. She states the goal is to resolve a dispute regarding privileged documents related to the investigation of Mr. Barroski.
• Mr. Oski (Investigator): Expresses serious concern that the order would inhibit the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s ability to provide information crucial to his ongoing investigation. He details how Credit Swiss initially hired him to solicit information from the Simon Wiesenthal Center, acknowledging the bank’s desire to access the Center’s investigative findings. He recounts a meeting with Mark Cohen (Gibson Dunn) where Cohen initially sought to silence the Simon Wiesenthal Center through a court order, but ultimately agreed to pursue obtaining information through him instead. He now fears the current legal action will jeopardize this information flow. He highlights a pattern of “lies” from Gibson Dunn in initiating the current legal challenge.
• Senator’s Questions: The Senator repeatedly challenges Miss Levy on the apparent contradiction between UBS’s stated commitment to transparency and its pursuit of a silencing order. He questions the logic of seeking an order to clarify an agreement that already silenced organizations.

V. Unanswered Questions and Further Investigation

The Senator pressed for information regarding whether UBS has conducted any review or audit to determine if its vaults, custody services, or financing arrangements were involved in handling art looted from Jewish families during the Holocaust. Miss Levy stated she would need to provide a written response. This indicates a lack of proactive investigation by UBS into this critical aspect of the historical wrongdoing.

VI. Methodology & Framework

The investigation appears to be utilizing a multi-pronged approach:

1. Historical Research: Examining archival records and investigating dormant accounts.
2. Legal Scrutiny: Analyzing the 1999 settlement agreement and challenging the current legal motion.
3. Witness Testimony: Gathering information from investigators, legal counsel, and representatives of relevant organizations.
4. International Cooperation: Seeking access to archives in Argentina, facilitated by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

VII. Notable Quotes

• “Great evil rarely announces itself all at once. It advances step by step, normalized, formalized, and excused until conscience itself is numbed.” – Speaker, emphasizing the insidious nature of the Holocaust’s origins.
• “That is not closure. It is the continuation of the wrongdoing, this time through the courts.” – Speaker, describing UBS’s legal action as a continuation of past injustices.
• “This is not to silence organization. This is a clarification of a settlement agreement…” – Miss Levy (UBS Counsel), attempting to frame the legal action as a procedural matter.
• “I am worried…it’s going to inhibit them from doing so less they get on the wrong side of Judge Corman.” – Mr. Oski, expressing concern about the chilling effect of the court order.

VIII. Synthesis/Conclusion

The testimony reveals a disturbing pattern of obstruction and a continued effort to conceal the full extent of Credit Swiss/UBS’s involvement in facilitating the theft of assets from Holocaust victims. The current legal action, framed as a clarification of a past settlement, is presented as a blatant attempt to silence accountability and prevent further investigation. The conflicting statements and unanswered questions underscore the need for continued scrutiny and a thorough investigation into UBS’s historical role and its commitment to transparency and restitution. The case highlights the enduring legacy of the Holocaust and the importance of confronting historical injustices.