US senators demand more answers from UBS over Nazi-linked accounts

UBS is facing 62 new questions from Washington over Credit Suisse's handling of accounts linked to Nazi Germany, reopening one of the most sensitive chapters in Swiss banking history. Senator Charles Grassley, the Republican chair of the US Senate Judiciary Committee, told UBS in a July 17 letter that the bank's earlier replies had not fully addressed the panel's concerns. The letter had not previously been disclosed.

UBS declined to comment on Grassley's letter. A person familiar with the bank's planning said UBS is preparing a response. The renewed exchange places the bank's transparency obligations under direct international scrutiny while an independent investigation approaches a deadline at the end of 2026.

The stakes extend beyond a dispute between a US committee and a Swiss lender. UBS acquired Credit Suisse in 2023 after its rival came close to collapse, taking on its legal liabilities and unresolved historical records. For Switzerland, the case again tests how the country's financial institutions confront evidence about assets taken from Jewish clients and banking relationships that survived the Nazi era.

UBS inherited Credit Suisse's legal liabilities when it completed the takeover in 2023. That responsibility now includes the records and claims arising from the bank's historical dealings with Nazi-linked clients and institutions.

The Senate committee has criticised UBS at a February hearing and is pressing for a complete investigation. Grassley has also indicated that he plans to hold another hearing, although he has not set a date. His office wants the historical material preserved in a repository containing Credit Suisse records connected to the Nazi accounts.

The bank has sought to close the six-year-old investigation at the end of this year and to narrow its scope. UBS has also challenged the independence of Neil Barofsky, the ombudsman overseeing the inquiry, arguing that he has approached the process without sufficient objectivity. Barofsky has rejected the bank's position in forceful terms. In May, he told the committee that UBS had made misleading statements and withheld records.

A US judge separately rejected UBS's attempt to limit its liability over newly identified Nazi-linked accounts in a ruling reported in April 2026. That decision adds legal pressure as the Senate seeks fuller historical disclosure.

The 1990s settlement paid $1.25 billion to Holocaust victims, but Jewish groups and Senate investigators say it may not cover every issue now emerging. UBS argues that the settlement resolved potential exposure arising from the banks' handling of Nazi-related accounts. It describes the current inquiry as an effort to complete the historical record.

The groups supporting the investigation take a different view of its legal and historical reach. They say newly uncovered information could involve conduct that was not covered by the earlier agreement. The records under examination include evidence that Credit Suisse serviced accounts for Nazis and related entities, as well as links to the so-called Rat Lines, escape routes used by Nazi fugitives travelling to Argentina after the Second World War.

The dispute therefore turns on the scope of the old settlement and the significance of material found decades later. A payment made in the 1990s established a major precedent for restitution, but it did not end the search for documentation. The Senate committee's demand for a permanent archive signals that lawmakers want future researchers and affected families to have access to a fuller record of how Swiss banking institutions handled these accounts.

Neil Barofsky says the investigation has uncovered previously unreported transfers involving Jewish clients' assets. In a May letter to the Senate committee, the ombudsman accused UBS of making “false and misleading statements” about examples in which Credit Suisse allegedly moved assets from Jewish clients into accounts held by Nazi-affiliated banks.

Barofsky also accused the bank of withholding records from the inquiry. His allegations have sharpened the conflict over access to archives and the timetable for completing the investigation. UBS has rejected his account publicly, saying the ombudsman's narrative lacks objectivity. The bank declined his request for more time and has insisted that he finish his report by the end of 2026.

The allegations remain claims within an ongoing investigation. Their importance lies in the records that may confirm or disprove them, including account documentation, transfer instructions and internal correspondence. Swiss historians have previously warned that bank archives could still contain unresolved evidence about Switzerland's conduct during the Second World War. The Senate's support gives the archival dispute a powerful international audience and increases pressure on UBS to explain which documents exist, who has reviewed them and why any material remains unavailable.

The next test will come through UBS's written reply, a possible Senate hearing and the ombudsman's report due by the end of 2026. Grassley's committee wants the bank to answer all 62 questions and to cooperate fully with the ombudsman's requests. The senator's proposed historical repository could shape how researchers, courts and families assess Credit Suisse's wartime and postwar conduct.

For UBS, the matter carries legal, reputational and governance consequences. The bank says the 1990s settlement addresses its potential exposure and has challenged the current investigation's methods. The Senate committee and Jewish groups say the inquiry is uncovering information that may fall outside that settlement. A US court has already rejected an attempt by UBS to limit liability over new findings, keeping the legal question open.

Switzerland's banking sector has spent decades defending its record while accepting that archives and restitution processes must evolve as evidence emerges. The current pressure will measure whether UBS can provide a complete account of Credit Suisse's past while managing the liabilities it inherited. The response will also show how seriously the bank treats historical transparency when records remain relevant to present-day legal claims.