A Swiss bank has written to its investors to destroy and permanently erase certain documents.
Credit Suisse said it made the request following an unspecified data leak in which some information fell into the hands of the media.
According to a report by the Financial Times, the motivation behind Credit Suisse’s request was to eradicate documentary evidence of the bank’s business ties to oligarchs and other wealthy Russians who sanctioned in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The Financial Times spoke with three sources who each received a letter from Credit Suisse last week in which the bank asked them to “destroy and permanently erase” data concerning the securitization of loans financed by yachts, private jets, real estate and financial assets.
According to the sources, Credit Suisse wrote in the letter that the request had been made because of a “recent data leak to the media,” which had been “verified by our investigators.”
No specific details concerning the link were shared in the investor letter, according to the FT report. Credit Suisse declined to comment.
“There have been rumors of a data breach on the level of the Panama Papers where the release of documents is imminent,” commented John Bambenek, principal threat hunter at California-based digital IT and security operations company, Netenrich.
“It is likely that whoever is behind this is focusing on Russian interests as this is coincidentally occurring at the same time. So, organizations are looking like they are engaging in preventative damage control.”
Bambenek went on to question the wisdom of the alleged action by Suisse Bank, commenting: “That said, telling someone to destroy documents usually ends poorly for all involved.”
In February, a data leak at Credit Suisse appeared to expose the hidden wealth of clients guilty of torture, drug trafficking, money laundering, corruption and other serious crimes. Details of 18,000 accounts containing an estimated £80bn ($100bn) were shared with the media by an anonymous whistleblower.
Credit Suisse said it hadn’t done anything illegal and that the details leaked by the whistleblower were “based on partial, inaccurate, or selective information taken out of context.”
Credit: Source link
Comments are closed.