AI
Written with AI assistanceâąDecember 3, 2025
AI
Generated IllustrationA criminal complaint for suspected corruption has been filed against Swiss business leaders who presented luxury gifts, including a gold bar and a Rolex clock, to former US President Donald Trump. A top Swiss official has downplayed the meeting, stating it was a 'private initiative'.
"Practices once considered unthinkable are becoming normalised under Mr Trumpâs transactional style of politicsâwhen power and corruption coalesce moral flexibility dressed in pragmatism can spread fast."
"Personally, I am very pleased that there is an entrepreneurial spirit in this country that is ready to help when the country needs it, that also takes risks."
A meeting between top Swiss executives and former US President Donald Trump, intended to address trade tariffs, has spiralled into a legal and political controversy. Two Swiss Green Party lawmakers have filed a criminal complaint for suspected corruption after it was revealed the business leaders presented Trump with luxury gifts, including a one-kilogram gold bar and a Rolex clock. The episode has ignited a fierce debate in Switzerland about corporate influence, diplomatic protocol, and the integrity of the nation's legal and political institutions. The complaint, now with the federal prosecutor, questions whether the executives breached Swiss law by attempting to influence a foreign public official.
The legal action was initiated by Green Party lawmakers Raphaël Mahaim and Greta Gysin. Their complaint, submitted to the federal prosecutor, targets the business delegation that met with Trump in early November 2025. This group included prominent figures such as Alfred Gantner of Partners Group, Jean-Frédéric Dufour of Rolex, and Johann Rupert of Richemont. The core of the complaint is whether the lavish gifts constitute an attempt to illegally influence a foreign official. Mahaim argues the incident risks "undermining the rule of law" and Switzerland's international reputation, warning against the normalization of "transactional style of politics". The Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland has confirmed receiving three separate criminal complaints related to the meeting.
The meeting's primary goal was to negotiate a reduction in US tariffs on Swiss exports, which stood at a steep 39%. The delegation appears to have succeeded, securing a deal that lowered the duties to 15% and won exemptions for the crucial aviation and pharmaceuticals sectors. Alongside their arguments, the executives presented the now-infamous gifts. Businessman Alfred Gantner has defended the gesture, arguing that such gifts align with diplomatic protocol. Critics, however, point to international anti-corruption standards, which view any gift that could appear to influence a public decision as unethical. In Switzerland, such gifts would typically belong to the state, not the individual, to remove the element of personal influence.
The Swiss government has maintained a degree of distance from the affair. Helene Budliger Artieda, the head of the State Secretary for Economic Affairs (Seco), confirmed she was aware of the gifts but stressed that Seco "deliberately did not get involved...as it was a private initiative." Despite the legal cloud, she praised the executives' actions, stating their visit was "decisive". She told the NZZ, "Personally, I am very pleased that there is an entrepreneurial spirit in this country that is ready to help when the country needs it, that also takes risks." This official stance highlights a division in perspective: while some see a potential crime, others see patriotic corporate diplomacy.
The controversy has exposed a fault line in Swiss politics. On one side, the Green Party lawmakers see a dangerous blurring of lines that threatens Switzerland's credibility. On the other, politicians like CĂ©line Amaudruz of the UDC/SVP dismiss the legal move as an "exaggerated" reaction. She argues that the close coordination between government and business is a "strength, not a liability" and points to the tangible success of the tariff reduction. This perspective is echoed by the business leaders themselves, who reportedly demonstrated to Trump how CHF200 billion in planned Swiss investment in the US over the next five years would help reduce the trade deficit.
The fate of the complaint now rests with the Swiss federal prosecutor. They must decide whether the evidence warrants opening a formal investigation into the business leaders' conduct. If the case is pursued, it could eventually be heard by the Federal Criminal Court. The decision will be a landmark, potentially redefining the boundaries of corporate engagement in Swiss foreign policy and setting a precedent for how the country handles allegations of corruption involving public officials abroad. For now, the Swiss public and political establishment await the prosecutor's next move.