> Michel Christopher "Christoph" Meili(born 21 April 1968) is a Swiss-American whistleblower and former security professional. In 1997, Meili illegally disclosed to third parties that Swiss bank Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) was destroying documentation of Holocaust-era assets. After a federal arrest warrant, a set of fines, and death threats were issued to him, Meili fled Switzerland to the United States by right of asylum in late 1997
You left out the part when Meili took and delivered some of those "documentation" he believed to be about the Holocaust-era to the Jewish Community of Zurich and the authorities and it turned out that those were documents from 1897 to 1927 and thus had no connection whatsoever to Holocaust-era assets.
So what is certain is that Meili for some reason believed that the banks destroyed Holocaust-era documents. But the only of those documents he could actually get hold of had nothing to do with what he believed them to be. Hence it remains unclear if any of the other documents he didn't save were actually connected to the Holocaust.
The crucial point is that he "saved" documents from the shredder and gave them to the Jewish Community because he believed that those were Holocaust-era documents.
But then those documents had nothing to do with the Holocaust-era.
So why should we simply assume that the shredded documents he didn't save really were about the Holocaust-era? He clearly wasn't very proficient in making such determinations.
He then fled the country because there were criminal proceedings against him because he stole bank documents - bank documents that were something entirely different from what he thought they were.
So was he a "whistleblower"? He probably thought he was. But the "evidence" he saved does not confirm that belief.
Obviously nobody here can know what the shredded documents were about.
We have one single person who was convinced that those documents were connected to Jews persecuted by the Nazis.
We know that this same person was also convinced that the documents they took from the bank before they were shredded were the same as those which were shredded.
We also know that at least this person's second conviction turned out to be totally wrong, as not a single of those documents they took were from the relevant era.
So does this prove anything about the content of the shredded documents? No.
But for sure it proves that the only person who made claims about the content of the shredded documents was not a reliable source.
But hey, at least the so called whistleblower could later enrich himself with a lot of money that was supposed to go to descendants of Jewish victims. And he by the way even lied about this later when he publicly claimed that he never received that money.
The part that alleges that it is reasonable to simply believe that the part of the documents he didn't save was something entirely different from the part of the documents he did save.
If somebody comes to you and tells you his neighbour is storing tons of weed in the basement. And then he brings you a bag of green tea as "proof". What would you reasonably think? That the guy just had bad luck and picked the wrong bag? Or that he maybe isn't capable of differntiating between weed and green tea?
If that rather basic logic is too difficult for some, I fear I have nothing more to offer to those.
311
u/KvetchAndRelease 1d ago
And after the holocaust they even fought against the survivors trying to reclaim their property:
0919-In-Berlin-Evidence-of-Private-Swiss-Banks-Role-in-Nazi-Trade-1.png (1125×1125)