US Senate demands more answers from UBS on Nazi-linked accounts

The Senate Judiciary Committee has sent UBS back to the records. In a July 17 letter that had not previously been disclosed, Senator Charles Grassley said the bank's earlier replies failed to answer the committee's questions fully. His new demand lists 62 questions about Credit Suisse's handling of accounts linked to Nazi victims, Nazi-affiliated institutions and postwar escape networks.

UBS declined to comment on the letter. A person familiar with the bank's planning said management is preparing a response. The exchange places the Swiss lender under fresh scrutiny in Washington at a time when its ownership of Credit Suisse makes the bank responsible for the acquired institution's legal liabilities and historical record.

The committee criticised UBS at a February hearing and continues to press for a transparent investigation. Grassley, a Republican senator from Iowa, also intends to hold another hearing, although he has not announced a date. The issue reaches beyond compliance files. It concerns whether records held by a major Swiss bank can establish what happened to Jewish clients' assets, and whether the public record is complete.

UBS inherited Credit Suisse's legal liabilities when it completed the takeover in 2023. That corporate fact now anchors the dispute. The Senate committee wants UBS to cooperate with the independent investigation into how Credit Suisse handled Nazi-linked accounts and to provide records requested by the ombudsman overseeing the inquiry.

UBS has argued that a settlement reached with Jewish groups in the 1990s, under which it paid $1.25 billion to Holocaust victims, resolves all potential exposure connected to Nazi-related accounts. The bank describes the present investigation as an effort to complete the historical record rather than determine additional liability.

Jewish groups supported by the Senate panel take a different view. They say newly uncovered material may concern conduct that the earlier settlement did not cover. A US judge rejected an UBS attempt in April 2026 to limit liability over new findings involving accounts linked to Nazi Germany. That ruling has added legal pressure to a historical investigation already testing the limits of a settlement made nearly three decades ago.

The investigation centres on records that could clarify forced transfers of Jewish clients' assets. The inquiry began after documents emerged showing that Credit Suisse serviced accounts for Nazis and related entities. Investigators are also examining links to the so-called Rat Lines, the escape routes through which Nazi fugitives reached Argentina after the Second World War.

In May, Neil Barofsky, the independent ombudsman, told the committee that UBS had made what he called “false and misleading statements” about previously unreported cases. He alleged that Credit Suisse executed forced transfers of Jewish clients' assets into accounts held by Nazi-affiliated banks and that UBS withheld records from the probe.

UBS rejected Barofsky's narrative in a public statement, saying it lacked objectivity. The bank also refused his request for more time and has insisted that he complete his report by the end of the year. The dispute has therefore become procedural as well as historical. Access to archives, the scope of the mandate and the wording of public findings could determine how future researchers assess Swiss banking conduct during and after the war.

The six-year probe is approaching a deadline while the parties remain divided over its mandate. UBS has pushed to close the investigation at the end of 2026 and has criticised Barofsky as biased. Barofsky and groups representing Holocaust survivors argue that the inquiry must continue long enough to examine newly disclosed material and test the bank's explanations against its own records.

Grassley has backed a thorough investigation and called on UBS to produce the documents requested by the ombudsman. His proposed historical repository would preserve Credit Suisse records connected to Nazi accounts, giving researchers and affected families a central place to examine material that has so far emerged piecemeal.

Helen Junz, an economist and former member of the Volcker and Bergier Commissions, joined the Senate committee and Barofsky as an ally in the dispute in July. The original commissions helped establish the historical framework for examining Swiss banking during the Second World War. Her involvement underlines the importance of expert review as the inquiry considers whether recently surfaced cases change the understanding created by the 1990s settlement.

UBS's next response will shape both its US relationship and Switzerland's account of wartime banking. The Senate committee has not accepted the bank's previous answers, and Grassley's planned hearing could bring the dispute back into public view before the investigation's expected year-end conclusion. A detailed reply to the 62 questions would give lawmakers a clearer basis for judging whether UBS has supplied the requested records and explanations.

For Switzerland, the case carries institutional consequences. Credit Suisse's files sit within the history of a bank that operated from the Swiss financial centre, while UBS now controls the inherited archive and liabilities. Historians, survivor groups and lawmakers in the United States are asking whether the available evidence has been disclosed fully and whether the 1990s settlement can address findings that came to light later.

The April 2026 US court ruling has already shown that UBS cannot assume every new allegation will fall within the limits it claims for the earlier agreement. The bank's response, Barofsky's final report and Grassley's next hearing will determine the next stage of a dispute where archival access remains central.