Claim to long-term dormant assets that the bank had published on www.dormantaccounts.ch

The complainant made a claim to so-called long-term dormant assets, which the bank had published on the website www.dormantaccounts.ch. The client proved to the bank that she was related to a person whose name and place of residence corresponded to those of the holder of the published dormant assets. The bank refused to make the payment because, in its opinion, there were contradictions between the information provided by the complainant and the bank’s files. As part of the Ombudsman proceedings, the matter was clarified to the extent that the bank agreed to pay out the dormant credit balance to the complainant in return for a declaration of indemnity, which the complainant gratefully accepted.

Since 2015, the aforementioned platform has published assets and personal data of the clients in question with whom the bank’s last contact was 60 years ago. If no one comes forward within one year of publication who can demonstrate sufficient entitlement to the assets, these will fall to the federal government. Persons who suspect that they are entitled to one of the dormant assets published may submit a corresponding application, which will be forwarded to the publishing bank for examination. The exact procedure is explained on the aforementioned website.

The complainant proceeded accordingly and was not recognized as entitled by the bank because it assumed that it still had contact with the client when the relative with the same name to whom the complainant referred had already died. The Ombudsman then discussed the case with the management of the bank. It turned out that the bank relied on an account statement issued after the death of the complainant’s relative. The discussions led to the joint conclusion that this was not a solid exclusion criterion, as the client’s last visit could have taken place before this account statement was created.

On the other hand, the probability of a relationship between the complainant and the deceased owner of the published dormant assets appeared probable on the basis of the documents submitted by her. Among other things, the last place of residence matched, and the complainant also submitted proof from the civil status register there, which confirmed that no two people with the same name had lived there at the time in question.

In view of the fact that the dormant assets had a relatively low value, the bank complied with the Ombudsman’s recommendation to pay out the assets to the complainant in return for a declaration of indemnity, even though it was not possible to dispel any final doubts as to her legitimacy, which can occur in such cases. In the declaration of indemnity, she confirmed to repay the money received to the bank if a person with a better entitlement were to make a claim to the assets before the publication deadline expired. This risk was manageable in view of the long period during which the asses were dormant and the publication period of only one year.