61340 Vorabseiten_e - Unabhängige Expertenkommission Schweiz

international law and it had therefore acted «in bad faith in terms of the Federal
Decree of 10 December 1945 and Article 940 of the Swiss Civil Code». 109 In all
other cases in which banks appeared as the defending party accused of trading
in looted securities, the Federal Supreme Court did not conclude that the transactions
had been conducted in bad faith.
In their defence before the Federal Supreme Court, the accused Swiss
commercial banks referred time and again to the example provided by the Swiss
National Bank which had done business with the German Reichsbank
throughout the war. The banks were not to know, therefore, that dealings in
securities with the Reichsbank might turn out to be illegal transactions. In the
first action to be heard by the Federal Supreme Court, in which the Luxembourg
claimant Nicolas Kieffer was reclaiming five 3% Swiss Government bonds
issued in 1937 each worth 1,000 francs, Credit Suisse defended its good-faith
acquisition by citing the Swiss National Bank. It claimed to have purchased the
bonds from the German Reichsbank in 1941,
«i.e., from a German bank with which all Swiss banks, including in
particular the Swiss National Bank, had transacted all regular banking
business without hesitation or reservation for the entire duration of the
war.» 110
Eventually a compromise was reached in this first action concerning looted
assets. On 10 November 1947 – well before the time limit for the filing of
claims had expired – the Federal Supreme Court concluded the case with an
amicable settlement between the claimant, Credit Suisse, and the Swiss
government which was being sued for compensation. The Federal Supreme
Court did not find anything out of the ordinary in the Credit Suisse transaction
and stated that in 1941 it would not have been reasonable for a bank to refuse
«a German partner which was also a bank, a normal stock market transaction».
111 The claimant reduced his compensation claim from 5,000 francs to
3,000 francs with the Swiss government and Credit Suisse contributing
between them the sum to be paid to the claimant.
In the case of the looted assets claim filed by Jeanne Wilhelmy-Hoffmann, the
Swiss Bank Corporation also based its argument on a reference to the Swiss
National Bank. It had no reason to doubt the legal provenance of the securities
as it had acquired them from the Reichsbank. However, the court did not accept
this line of argument as the securities had only been acquired in 1943.
468
«In contrast to the National Bank’s gold transactions, the disputed
purchase of securities was not required by the national interest [...], in this