While it is difficult to prove that there was a quid-pro-quo between what the Swiss bosses offered Trump – was it only $100,000? – and the reduced tariffs, the problem of defining bribery or outright corruption is not simple. The six are being accused, under the Swiss Criminal Code Article 322, of giving a foreign public official gifts or benefits intended to influence an official act. This constitutes “bribery of foreign public officials” and may count as an “undue advantage.”

Photograph Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture – Public Domain

Talking about corruption, Donald Trump and the Swiss may seem banal. It has been estimated that Trump and his family enriched themselves by $3.4 billion during his time in office. As for the Swiss, countless James Bond movies have the villains stashing away money in secret Swiss bank accounts or cash in anonymous deposit boxes. Trump is, in fact, involved in a Swiss corruption episode, but with an unusual twist. Two Swiss Green parliamentarians submitted a criminal complaint to the Swiss federal prosecutor not against Trump directly, but against six wealthy Swiss executives for allegedly engaging in corruption by giving Trump a gold Rolex clock and an inscribed gold ingot during their November 4 meeting in the Oval Office.

What is the proof of corruption? Soon after the meeting, Trump reduced tariffs on some Swiss goods from 39% to 15%. Can the presents – worth 100,000 Swiss francs – be considered bribery?

Buying Trump is certainly possible. Think of Qatar’s present of a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jet. David D. Kirkpatrick, in an extensive article in the August 11, 2025, New Yorker, describes how a substantial portion of the $3.4 billion – over $2 billion – comes from cryptocurrency related ventures, with the rest coming from family oriented business deals, media, golf clubs, and other sources. Together, these examples highlight just how the thin line can be between personal enrichment and public office.

So why are the two Swiss, Raphael Mahaim and Greta Gysin, so worked up about only $100,000, and accusing the Swiss executives, and not Trump, of corruption?

“It feels like the Middle Ages,” Mahaim explained to the media about the Oval Office meeting between top Swiss executives, Trump, and the gifts. “One has the impression that there are gentlemen kissing the monarch’s hands – literally covering him with gold to obtain a favor from him!” In their complaint to the public prosecutor, Mahaim and Gysin wrote that the affair raises “the credibility of our institutions, respect for the rule of law and Switzerland’s international reputation.”

Much has been made in Switzerland about how the six Swiss business leaders – including top people from Rolex, Cartier owner Richemont, commodity trader Mercuria, private equity firm Partners Group, shipping company MSC and refiner MKS PAMP – negotiated with Trump outside the normal diplomatic channels. (See A Tale of the Cigar, Donald Trump and Cigar Diplomacy – CounterPunch.org) From the Swiss official perspective, the justification was how the public and private sectors had worked in tandem – “Team Switzerland,” it was called – and that the reduction of 39% to 15% tariffs was worth whatever means were used. Swiss economy minister Guy Parmelin said it was the “best we could achieve” and insisted that “we haven’t sold our souls to the devil.”

More than just highlighting the increasingly thin line between public and private interests, the corruption complaint ought to rekindle questions about Trump and Company around the world. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt argued that suggestions that President Trump is personally profiting while in office are “absolutely absurd,” claiming that he “left a life of luxury and a real estate empire” for public service.

But genuine ethical concerns remain about how Trump is conducting diplomacy. If Mar-a-Lago is the White House South, is the real White House – “the people’s house” – becoming just another Trump Tower with a $300 million ballroom reflecting his ostentatious vision of grandeur and opulence?

While it is difficult to prove that there was a quid-pro-quo between what the Swiss bosses offered Trump – was it only $100,000? – and the reduced tariffs, the problem of defining bribery or outright corruption is not simple. The six are being accused, under the Swiss Criminal Code Article 322, of giving a foreign public official gifts or benefits intended to influence an official act. This constitutes “bribery of foreign public officials” and may count as an “undue advantage.”

Minimally, “There is a sense from some in Switzerland that this was very close to corruption,” said Daniel Woker, a former Swiss ambassador quoted in The Financial Times “I am not sure it shows Switzerland at its best.” The James Bond image of shady Swiss bankers is not easy to erase, even with tightened oversight of banking due diligence.

The separation between public and private interests needs constant scrutiny. Under Trump, the separation is disappearing. On what basis, for example, was Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner with Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Miami negotiating with Ukrainian officials? Is Kushner in Moscow negotiating rare-earth deals in the Arctic with Russia? An article in the conservative Wall Street Journal was titled, “Make Money Not War: Trump’s Real Plan for Peace in Ukraine.”

And, as with so many American phenomena like Thanksgiving and Black Friday, the collapsing separation of public from private interests is slowly inching its way across the Atlantic to Switzerland, as the Oval Office meeting showed. Alfred Gantner, the co-founder of Partners Group and a Swiss participant at the White House meeting, said public-private collaboration delivered “a dearly needed resolution.” “It’s a testament to the professionalism and openness of Swiss leadership . . . who’ve ensured that the private sector can engage transparently and constructively in advancing our country’s interests,” he was quoted in Swissinfo. “Our gifts were purely symbolic and carried a message,” he declared, refuting charges of corruption in a local newspaper.

What message were the gifts carrying? What symbol?

When Harry Truman was president, he famously displayed a sign on his desk that read, “The buck stops here.” The sign meant he accepted responsibility for decisions made during his administration; it did not mean all money flowed to him. And it certainly did not imply Rolex clocks or gold ingots would be prominently displayed on the Resolute Desk. If only “Give ‘em Hell, Harry!” Truman were here to “give hell” to Trump and Company over their diplomatic enriching. And, while he’s at it, Truman could also “give hell” to the six Swiss executives who bore the golden gifts.

The post Corruption, Donald Trump and the Swiss appeared first on CounterPunch.org.

From CounterPunch.org via this RSS feed