A Swiss bank wrote to its investors that certain records and documents be destroyed and permanently erased.
Credit Suisse stated that the request was made in response to an unidentified data leak whereby some data fell into the hands of the media.
The purpose behind Credit Suisse’s request, according to the Financial Times, was to destroy documented evidence of the bank’s business relationships to oligarchs and other affluent Russians sanctioned in reply to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Three main sources received letters from Credit Suisse. Last week, The Financial Times asked these sources to “erase and completely remove “materials and other data relating to the securitization of loans secured by yachts, private jets, property, as well as financial assets.”
Data Leaked To Media
Credit Suisse noted in the letter that the decision was taken because of a “latest data leakage to the press,” which had been “confirmed by their investigators,” according to the reports.
According to the FT report, no particular facts about the link were revealed in the investor letter. Credit Suisse did not respond to a request for comment.
There have been reports of a data leak on the scale of the Panama Papers, where records are about to be released, said John Bambenek, chief threat hunter at Netenrich, a California-based digital IT and security management business.
Since this is all happening simultaneously, it’s likely that whoever is behind all this is primarily focused on Russian interests. As a result, businesses appear to be taking proactive measures to avoid damage.
Bambenek then questioned the rationality of Suisse Bank’s alleged approach.
A data breach at Credit Suisse in February seemed to uncover the hidden assets of clients who had been convicted of torturing, drug dealing, financial crimes, fraud, and other major crimes. An unidentified whistleblower released details of 18,000 accounts totaling an estimated £80 billion ($100 billion) with the media.
Credit Suisse stated that the data and documents exposed by the whistleblower were “based on partial, erroneous, or selective information taken out of context” and that it had done nothing wrong.