Swiss banks linked to investments in ICE US immigration enforcement

Which Swiss banks indirectly cooperate with the US immigration police? Keystone/EPA/CRAIG LASSIG

Dozens of companies support the operations of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency (ICE), whose budget has surged since Donald Trump returned to the White House. With annual funding of around $85 billion, ICE has become the best-funded law-enforcement body in the United States.

Among the companies most closely linked to ICE are the two leading operators of private prisons and migrant detention centres: GEO Group and CoreCivic. GEO Group also provides so-called “skip tracing” services, which help locate individuals.

Both companies have for years been accused of human rights violations, including forcing detainees to work without pay, restricting access to legal counsel and limiting family visits. As a result, several major banks (including JPMorgan) have refused to finance GEO Group and CoreCivic since 2019.

Swiss investments

Despite these controversies, several Swiss financial institutions hold investments in the two companies. According to a study by the NGO Break FreeExternal link, UBS holds more than $50 million in GEO Group shares – close to 3% of the company’s capital – as well as around $8 million in CoreCivic shares.

The study also shows that the Swiss National Bank (SNB) holds approximately $5.5 million in GEO Group shares. It sold its entire stake in CoreCivic around a year ago. Smaller holdings were identified at Zurich Cantonal Bank ($420,000 in GEO Group shares and $480,000 in CoreCivic shares) and Pictet ($320,000 and $250,000 respectively).

OECD mediation request

These investments have been under scrutiny since January 2024, when several NGOs filed a request for mediation with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The complaint targeted UBS, the SNB and two British banks, HSBC and Barclays.

The NGOs argued that UBS and the SNB had failed to comply with OECD principles on responsible business conduct by not using their shareholder positions to push for an end to alleged human rights abuses.

Both UBS and the SNB declined to participate in mediation. The SNB argued that, as a central bank, it is not subject to the OECD guidelines for multinational enterprises. UBS said its holdings were passive investments and therefore did not allow for direct influence.

Relevant and up to date: the SWIplus app brings you the most important information and news from Switzerland. Download it now!

The Swiss National Contact Point for Responsible Business Conduct, housed within the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), did not issue a formal opinion on the SNB. In October, however, it recommended that UBS examine whether these investments were compatible with its corporate charter.

Client investments, not proprietary holdings

The SNB declined to comment further. The most recent publicly available data date from the end of September, meaning it is unclear whether the central bank has since sold its remaining GEO Group shares.

UBS, for its part, stressed that the investments are made by clients rather than by the bank itself. It said the holdings are part of passive investment products that track stock-market indices and therefore cannot exclude individual companies. Pictet and Zurich Cantonal Bank made similar statements, emphasising that they do not invest proprietary funds in the companies concerned and that any exposure is client-driven.

Translated from French using AI/amva

How we translate with AI

We use automatic translation tools, such as DeepL and Google Translate, for some content.  

Each translated article is carefully reviewed by a journalist for accuracy. Using translation tools gives us the time for more in-depth articles. 

Learn more here about how we work with AI.