61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

commission concluded that investigations should take place exclusively on the
basis of concrete information supplied by the Allies. This meant that the
promise made as part of the Currie negotiations to take measures to trace looted
property was externalised: Swiss institutions would only take action inside the
country if watertight information could be supplied from without. To the
extent that the concept of acquisition «in good faith» was enshrined in the Swiss
Civil Code, they also wanted to forgo any enquiries. An obligation to return
looted assets acquired in good faith initially seemed inconceivable. The ultimate
effect of this was to prevent any interference by the government in existing
private law. Arguments of legal certainty and constitutional legality served to
keep appropriate measures from being taken. In July 1945, the Swiss Bankers
Association assumed that «anyone receiving money and bearer-securities in
good faith may rest assured that he or she will in no way be penalised at a later
date». 34 Representatives of the banks expected that securities would, on
principle, not be included as looted assets in the special legislation. Adolf Jann,
Secretary of the Swiss Bankers Association from 1939 to 1944, realised that the
issue of compensation could also lead to a political row within the country. He
therefore wondered:
«whether Switzerland should not simply categorically refuse to do
anything where securities have been acquired in good faith. After all,
people from the former occupied countries who have been looted know
exactly who stole or misappropriated their securities and the only right way
to proceed would be to take action against the ‹looters› and include any
compensation or return within the framework of reparations claims.» 35
On 11 August 1945, the official responsible at the Federal Political
Department, Etienne Junod, commented on the Swiss Bankers Association in
a memo: «The solution that it proposes seems to me to be a typical manifestation
of passivity. A wait-and-see policy is the wrong one.» 36 The obstructive
attitude of the banks was a problem for the authorities. In the run-up to the
Decree on Looted Assets («Raubgutbeschluss»), the Swiss Art Dealers Association
(Kunsthandelsverband der Schweiz, KHVS) also opposed any extraordinary
measures to restitute illegally acquired cultural assets. The art dealers invoked
current law, which reflected the «normal» state of affairs. The Association also
added that it would have to «forgo the protection of Switzerland as a state of
law» if it were to follow the line taken by the authorities. 37 The Association
considered there was no justification for sacrificing tried and tested private law
on account of «looted art» valued at half a million Swiss francs. In this case,
the question of value seems to be a phony one. 38 The Association was more
434