Swiss Leaks: tajni računi HSBC-a pod međunarodnom lupom
Le Monde i ICIJ 2015. koordinirali su analizu procurjelih podataka o računima švicarske podružnice HSBC-a i praksama u razdoblju do 2007.
Published in February 2015, Swiss Leaks was a cross-border investigation into records from the Swiss subsidiary of HSBC, HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA. The reporting examined how the bank managed accounts held by clients from many countries and whether its practices enabled tax evasion, concealment of assets and other forms of financial misconduct.
How the investigation began
The project was based on data taken from HSBC’s Geneva operation by Hervé Falciani, a former information-technology employee. French authorities obtained the material in 2008. Journalists at the French newspaper Le Monde later received access to the files and worked with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) and media organisations in several countries to analyse them.
Le Monde played a central role in examining the French dimension of the documents and in initiating the wider journalistic collaboration. The ICIJ coordinated the international investigation, helping participating newsrooms compare records, identify public-interest issues and report on clients and banking practices within their own national contexts. The project involved dozens of journalists and media partners across multiple countries.
What the documents contained
The files covered accounts and related information from the period around 2005 to 2007. ICIJ reported that the records represented more than 100,000 clients and approximately 180,000 offshore accounts, with funds passing through the accounts reaching about 100 billion US dollars during the period examined. These figures described the scale of the dataset and the banking activity recorded in it; they did not mean that every account holder had broken the law.
The material included account names, balances, internal bank communications and information about account structures. It also showed instances in which bank employees discussed clients’ use of numbered accounts, offshore companies or cash withdrawals. Such features can have legitimate explanations, but they can also make ownership and the tax treatment of assets more difficult for authorities to establish.
What the original newsrooms reported
The participating news organisations reported that some HSBC employees appeared to assist clients in keeping assets hidden from tax authorities or in managing undeclared funds. The investigation also identified account holders connected in the records to politics, business, entertainment and, in some cases, allegations or investigations involving serious crime. Those connections were not by themselves proof that an account holder had committed a crime, and the reporting distinguished between documented banking activity, allegations and established court findings.
A central conclusion of Swiss Leaks was that the bank’s procedures appeared insufficient to identify and prevent certain risks. The reporting raised questions about whether the institution had adequately checked the sources of funds, the tax status of clients and the possible use of accounts to conceal ownership. It also examined the difference between private banking secrecy and unlawful concealment from tax authorities.
Holding an account was not, by itself, illegal
Swiss Leaks did not establish that every person named in the files had evaded tax or committed another offence. People may lawfully hold foreign bank accounts, including for reasons such as residence, employment, inheritance, international business or personal financial arrangements. The legal question depends on the rules applicable to the individual, the country concerned, the declaration of assets and income, and the source and use of the funds.
For that reason, a name in the dataset should not be treated as a finding of criminal conduct. The public-interest significance of the investigation lay in the bank’s documented practices, the scale of the information and the questions it raised about oversight and compliance.
HSBC’s public response
HSBC acknowledged that the material came from stolen data dating from 2007 and said that the bank had changed substantially since then. In public statements, the bank apologised for failures in past controls, said that it had strengthened its compliance procedures and stated that it no longer accepted clients who could not demonstrate that their funds were properly taxed.
The bank also argued that the files were old, incomplete and taken out of context. HSBC said that the presence of a client or an account in the records did not prove wrongdoing and that the reporting did not always reflect the status of clients’ tax affairs. These points formed a significant part of the bank’s response and should be considered when interpreting the investigation.
Consequences and wider significance
The publication prompted renewed scrutiny by tax authorities, prosecutors and legislators in several countries. It added to wider international efforts to exchange financial information, challenge banking secrecy and make financial institutions responsible for stronger customer and tax-compliance controls. The investigation also showed how journalists in different countries can analyse a large leaked dataset while applying local knowledge and legal context.
Swiss Leaks remains an example of data-driven investigative journalism rather than a single list of proven offenders. Its evidence concerned a historical period, and later legal or administrative decisions must be assessed separately from the original reporting. The principal sources for the project were the investigations published by Le Monde, the ICIJ and their participating media partners, together with HSBC’s public statements and responses.
Sources and editorial note
- Le Monde, reporting on the HSBC Swiss files and the French dimension of the investigation.
- International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the Swiss Leaks investigation and its published explanations of the dataset.
- HSBC public statements concerning the historical data, its compliance controls and its response to the reporting.
This article summarises the historical investigation and does not make new allegations. It separates the existence of an account or a name in leaked records from a finding of unlawful conduct.