He had a small equity in the bank, plus he was partners with the firm that handled all their transactions -- likely transactions that were used to help fund the Nazis. The article also said the only reason he wasn't prosecuted was lack of resources.
Anyway, who cares? It's old news, and besides, the Art. 3, Sec. 3 says that even cases of treason won't work corruption of blood. Did anyone care that Joseph Kennedy was a criminal? It has no reflection on the current president.
Actually, AntiRepublicrat, the article says:
No charges were brought against Union Banking's American directors. The federal government was too busy trying to fight the war, said Donald Goldstein, a professor of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. "We did not have the resources to do these things," Goldstein said.
In other words, a liberal college professor's opinion is that is the reason the American Director's were not prosecuted. I wold suspect that the real reason they were not is that Thyssen had broken with the Nazi part in 1938... and was languishing in a Nazi prison! The Bank was siezed because it was a German Asset, just as almost all other German assets were siezed in WWII, not because it was "financing" the Nazis.
AR, there were literally NO CHARGES TO BE BROUGHT!
Now, I am surprised that AP has not learned that George Bush's fourteenth cousin, twice removed, by marriage, is a child molester. That would be of more true value in assessing the character of George W. Bush than this irrelevant tripe.