Lead: A lawyer’s multi-year probe, presented in a 75-page written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 3, 2026, asserts that Credit Suisse and banks later merged into it maintained previously unreported financial links to Nazi institutions and individuals. The filing credits accounts tied to the German foreign office, an SS officer who managed economic assets, and a wartime account for an arms manufacturer. UBS, which acquired Credit Suisse in 2023, reinstated the investigator and has cooperated with the review. The disclosures have prompted a Senate hearing and renewed public scrutiny of Swiss banking during World War II.
Key Takeaways
- Neil M. Barofsky submitted a 75-page written statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Feb. 3, 2026, detailing new archival findings about Credit Suisse’s wartime activity.
- The investigation identifies accounts linked to the German foreign office, an entity involved in deportations to concentration camps during World War II.
- Barofsky’s team found records pointing to an SS officer who managed funds for the Nazi paramilitary economic apparatus.
- The filing reports a wartime account for a Nazi arms manufacturer and previously unreported forced transfers of Jewish assets into Nazi-controlled accounts.
- UBS, which bought Credit Suisse in 2023, rehired Barofsky after Credit Suisse had dismissed him and has provided resources to continue the inquiry.
- The Senate Judiciary Committee scheduled testimony and circulated a draft of the statement to members ahead of a public hearing on Feb. 3, 2026.
- Senator Charles E. Grassley framed the work as essential to “shining light” on a dark chapter, underscoring bipartisan interest in the findings.
Background
Credit Suisse, a major Swiss bank with a history stretching back to the 19th century, has long faced scrutiny over its World War II-era activities. Previous reviews and litigation in the 1990s and 2000s examined dormant accounts and restitution claims; banks, including Credit Suisse, reached settlements and issued denials at the time. The new probe builds on archival research that reexamines ledger entries, account registries and correspondence uncovered in Swiss and international archives.
Neil M. Barofsky, a lawyer retained to conduct the review, has worked for several years cataloging wartime-era records tied to Credit Suisse and entities that later merged into the bank. His written statement, now circulated to Senate Judiciary Committee members, expands the scope of previously documented connections by naming additional types of account holders and transfers. UBS’s 2023 takeover of Credit Suisse brought new corporate oversight and prompted the bank to reconstitute and continue the archival review.
Main Event
Barofsky’s 75-page submission to the Judiciary Committee alleges that Credit Suisse and predecessor banks held accounts for the German foreign office, an agency that played roles in deportations during the Nazi era. The filing also identifies an SS officer who administered funds for the Nazi paramilitary economic arm, and it documents a wartime account tied to a manufacturer of arms. Those findings were described in a draft circulated to senators ahead of testimony on Feb. 3, 2026.
The report details transactions and account records the investigative team says were not disclosed in earlier inquiries. Barofsky’s statement claims there were forced transfers of Jewish assets into accounts that ultimately became controlled by Nazi entities. According to the filing, some of these movements appear in ledgers and correspondence that link the assets to institutional account holders rather than only to individual depositors.
UBS officials, including Rob Karofsky, president of UBS Americas, submitted their own written testimony to the committee. In that filing, UBS says it “fully committed” to restarting and completing Barofsky’s work following its 2023 acquisition and praised the firm’s cooperation. Barofsky’s statement, while critical in parts, also acknowledges UBS’s provision of resources and access to archives to enable the ongoing research.
Analysis & Implications
The new allegations, if substantiated, broaden the historical record about Swiss banking interactions with Nazi institutions. They suggest that institutional linkages during the war were more varied and potentially more systematic than some prior accounts indicated. For survivors and their descendants, newly documented forced transfers would reopen questions about restitution, accountability and the adequacy of past settlements.
Politically, the findings have already prompted a Senate hearing and could lead to renewed calls for transparency measures, archival access and potential legal review. UBS’s cooperation reduces friction for researchers, but it may also expose the bank to reputational and legal scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions if specific accounts tied to wrongful transfers are further documented.
Economically, the revelations are unlikely to pose immediate financial risk to UBS’s day-to-day operations, given the passage of time and prior settlements. However, they could increase regulatory attention on record-keeping, corporate histories, and how post-merger institutions handle legacy liabilities. International relations between Switzerland and countries with large communities of Holocaust survivors may also enter diplomatic discussions.
Comparison & Data
| Previously Known (1990s–2000s) | New Findings (2026 Filing) |
|---|---|
| General evidence of dormant accounts and some claim settlements. | Specific accounts tied to the German foreign office, an SS officer, and a wartime arms manufacturer. |
| Settlements addressed many individual restitution claims. | Documentation of forced transfers of Jewish assets into Nazi-controlled accounts. |
The table above contrasts the focus of earlier public reconciliations—largely on dormant individual accounts and broad settlements—with Barofsky’s assertion of more explicit institutional account relationships. The investigative team cites archival entries and correspondence as the basis for these distinctions; establishing legal or reparative obligations will require further document-by-document verification.
Reactions & Quotes
Senators and banking officials responded quickly to the circulated draft. Lawmakers emphasized transparency and the moral imperative to investigate wartime financial conduct.
“Shining light on Credit Suisse’s past is part of turning the page, a very dark chapter of history.”
Senator Charles E. Grassley (Judiciary Committee)
Grassley framed the hearing as a continuation of prior oversight into historical injustices. Committee members said the session would probe the archival record and question both the investigator and UBS representatives about access to documents and the scope of the inquiry.
“We fully committed to getting Mr. Barofsky’s work back on track so it could be completed.”
Rob Karofsky (President, UBS Americas)
UBS’s written testimony emphasizes cooperation and resource allocation after the 2023 takeover. Barofsky’s statement, while critical of past omissions, acknowledges UBS’s access provisions and funding for continued research.
Unconfirmed
- Whether the accounts identified directly financed deportation operations remains under verification; the filing links account holders to agencies but does not document operational payments in every case.
- Specific identities and the ultimate disposition of some assets named in the filing have not been publicly corroborated beyond the draft statement circulated to senators.
- The extent to which earlier bank-led reviews had access to the same archival materials is unclear and under investigation; Barofsky’s team contends additional records were located.
Bottom Line
The Barofsky filing submitted on Feb. 3, 2026, expands the historical record by identifying institutional accounts tied to the German foreign office, an SS officer, and a wartime arms maker connected to Credit Suisse and banks later merged into it. UBS’s 2023 acquisition and its decision to reinstate and support the investigator have accelerated disclosure and raised public and congressional interest.
Much of the draft’s force depends on archival interpretation and subsequent corroboration. The Senate hearing will be a focal point for clarifying the evidence, determining whether further legal or reparative steps are warranted, and setting expectations for ongoing archival transparency by successor banks and governments.