For more than a century, wealthy families did not simply deposit funds with Swiss banks—they sought a sanctuary. Switzerland offered what few jurisdictions could promise: neutrality in turbulent times, stability amid political swings, and a near-sacred respect for private capital and secrecy.
Switzerland’s standing as a financial sanctuary has floundered. Political gamesmanship and an increasingly aggressive compliance regime have combined to reshape the country’s once-unassailable brand. For global family offices and ultra-high-net-worth individuals who require discretion and predictability, Switzerland is no longer a viable choice.
The most dramatic rupture came in March 2023, when Credit Suisse collapsed and was forced into an emergency takeover.
Observers across Europe and the United States described the episode not as an isolated corporate failure, but as reputational damage to Swiss banking as a whole. The consolidation that followed shrank the sector’s balance-sheet footprint and concentrated systemic exposure in a single dominant institution. That may have stabilized markets in the short term. But it also reinforced the perception that Switzerland’s financial architecture is fragile.
Even before the Credit Suisse collapse, reputational fissures were visible. The February 2022 “Suisse Secrets” leak placed Swiss private banking under an uncomfortable spotlight. Allegations that accounts were held by politically exposed persons and individuals tied to serious crimes revived long-standing criticisms about “dirty money” and lax oversight. For legitimate clients, the optics mattered. Swiss banks have repeatedly insisted they operate under rigorous compliance standards. These standards do exist but the concern is how the Swiss regulators selectively apply their regulatory protocols.
Subsequent enforcement actions have kept the reputational bleed alive. In 2025, banking giant Julius Baer was ordered to forfeit millions of dollars tied to anti-money laundering (AML) control failures. Even if the underlying conduct was historical, the signal landed squarely in the present: Swiss private bank plus AML deficiency. In today’s regulatory climate, perception often matters as much as rule of law.
Public confidence metrics also reflect the drift. Studies cited by the Swiss Bankers Association indicate that trust in Swiss banks has continued to decline while criticism has grown.
Stack these developments together — a systemic institutional failure, repeated dirty-money headlines, ongoing AML enforcement at flagship wealth managers, and softening trust metrics — and the pattern is difficult to ignore. Switzerland’s banking sector is more scrutinized, more politically entangled, and much less predictable than its legacy brand.
The prolonged freezing of assets belonging to Monaco businessman Vadim Shulman illustrates the concern in concrete terms.
Shulman, a Ukrainian-born businessman and philanthropist who holds Israeli and Cypriot citizenship and has long resided in Monaco, has had millions of dollars locked away in Swiss accounts for nearly 10 years. The underlying Ukrainian criminal case against him was formally dismissed in January 2025 for lack of evidence. A Ukrainian court invalidated the original 2019 freezing order, and the Ukrainian government notified Swiss authorities in April that the case had been terminated and that Shulman’s assets should be released. Yet the Swiss continue to freeze the accounts.
According to Shulman and his legal team, the case originated in a civil dispute with Ukrainian banking tycoon. Shulman contends that allegations of laundering money were retaliatory fabrications.
International dispute resolution lawyer who advises Shulman’s legal team, Ivan Lishchyna has been blunt in his assessment: “The idea that Shulman would launder money through accounts of people he is suing is ludicrous.
Swiss federal prosecutor Miro Dangubic expanded the freeze beyond the scope of the original Ukrainian order, attaching additional accounts linked to Shulman, but unrelated to the terminated Ukrainian investigation.
“What began as a standard MLAT request metastasized into unilateral judicial activism,” Lishchyna argued. “Mr. Dangubic wasn’t satisfied with the limited order issued by Ukraine — he expanded it drastically, freezing assets with no logical connection to the Ukrainian case, and no other articulated basis.
Lyschina maintains, “There is no justification for the continued attachment of these funds. Swiss prosecutors are now acting well beyond the scope of any legal paradigm, and their refusal to release Mr. Shulman’s assets is a betrayal of Switzerland’s own legal traditions.”
Marie-Alix Canu Bernard, an international white-collar defense attorney, described the situation in stark terms: “This isn’t just a legal overstep — it’s an economic hostage situation. There are no criminal charges, no sovereign claimants, no basis for the attachment — and yet Switzerland continues to withhold property that is lawfully Shulman’s.”
The implications extend beyond one individual. Shulman has funded Jewish schools, kindergartens, synagogues, and medical initiatives in Eastern Europe. Rabbi Liron Ederi, a communal leader, warned that “this case sends the wrong signal. You’re punishing an innocent person not just in his private capacity, but also in his charitable one.”
Whether viewed as prudent caution or bureaucratic excess, the optics are difficult for Switzerland. Historically celebrated for neutrality and restraint, Swiss authorities now operate unpredictably within a dense web of international compliance mandates. The U.S. Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), the OECD’s Automatic Exchange of Information regime, and sustained European Union scrutiny have significantly narrowed the space for traditional banking secrecy. Article 47 of the Swiss Federal Banking Act — which criminalizes unauthorized disclosure of client information — remains in place. Yet critics argue that inconsistent enforcement and expansive interpretations have eroded trust among clients seeking stability.
Financial hubs such as Hong Kong and Singapore are positioning themselves as better alternatives. The Boston Consulting Group projects that Hong Kong could surpass Switzerland as the world’s largest offshore wealth hub by 2028. The Middle East and select Caribbean jurisdictions are also attracting capital flows once destined for Geneva. Even parts of the United States have emerged as unexpected magnets for offshore wealth.
As Canu Bernard warned, “This is the slow death of a banking culture once known for its discretion, rule of law, and respect for private capital. And it won’t be long before more clients take their money elsewhere.
For a nation whose financial identity was built on trust, that warning carries weight.
Frank Salvato is an independent journalist and new media analyst who writes on public issues and emerging technology with a focus on accountability, legality, and the advancement of public knowledge.
