BDS-1000 Dossier: Audemars Piguet Holding SA

Dossier ID: BDS-1000-06-MD Target: Audemars Piguet Holding SA (AP) Dossier Date: June 2026 Audit Inputs: Military (June 2026), Digital (2026-05-01), Economic (2026-05-01), Political (2026-05-01) Corpus Standard: Documented evidence only; no advocacy framing; no unverifiable claims hardened

Target Profile

Key Facts:

• Israeli subsidiary: Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd (corp. ID 516319738), Rothschild Boulevard 13, 6688116 Tel Aviv-Yafo
• Key brands: Royal Oak, Royal Oak Offshore, Code 11.59, Millenary, Jules Audemars
• BDS-1000 score: 266 - Tier D (Moderate)

Executive Summary

Audemars Piguet is a privately held Swiss manufacturer of high-complications mechanical watches, founded in 1875 in Le Brassus and controlled by the Audemars and Piguet families. Its Israeli exposure consists of one operational entity - Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd, incorporated at Rothschild Boulevard 13, Tel Aviv-Yafo - which operates the AP House format combining a retail boutique, after-sales service centre, and hospitality venue.¹²³ As the locally incorporated importer of record for AP watches entering Israel, this subsidiary represents the primary structural vector through which AP’s economic activity in Israel is organised.²⁴ AP does not manufacture food, agricultural goods, construction materials, or any product category subject to settlement-origin labelling regimes; its products carry Swiss Made designation under Switzerland’s revised origin ordinance.⁵

The documented evidence base yields no identified military, defence, dual-use, or weapons-procurement nexus at any level of investigation. No contract, tender, framework agreement, or service relationship between AP and the Israeli Ministry of Defence, IDF, Mossad, Shin Bet, or any Israeli state security body has been identified.⁶⁷⁸ No Israeli-origin military or intelligence technology deployment at AP has been confirmed; the most substantive digital-technology findings - Zscaler and AppsFlyer - are each supported by a single or secondary source and require live confirmation.⁹¹⁰ No AP presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or any Israeli settlement zone has been identified; the UN OHCHR settlements-business database contains no AP entry.¹¹¹²¹³

Economically, AP’s Tel Aviv presence is a material commercial investment - a heritage-listed building fitted to AP House specifications in Tel Aviv’s UNESCO White City conservation zone - and generates Israeli corporate-tax, VAT, and municipal-tax obligations under standard Israeli law.⁴¹⁴ Diamond supply through the Israeli Diamond Exchange presents a structural possibility but rests on industry-level inference, not a confirmed AP–Israeli supplier relationship.¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷ Politically, AP has not issued any public statement on the October 2023 Gaza war or the occupation, has made no identified contributions to FIDF, JNF, or settlement organisations, and has not been targeted by any documented BDS campaign.^18192021 Its 2022 withdrawal from Russia - publicly confirmed and press-documented - contrasts with its continued Tel Aviv operations, a differential that is documented but not one AP has addressed.¹⁸²²²³

The audited evidence results in Military = 0.00 and Digital = 0.00, with Economic = 3.86 and Political = 2.00, yielding a BRS of 266 and a Tier D (Moderate) classification. The Tier D designation reflects an economic presence in Israel that is inward-facing, commercially framed, and not located in occupied territories - not a profile of strategic alignment with Israeli military or settlement activity.

Timeline of Relevant Events

Corporate Overview

Group Structure

Audemars Piguet Holding SA, incorporated in Le Brassus, Switzerland, is the ultimate parent entity. The company is wholly owned by descendants of the founding Audemars and Piguet families and is not affiliated with LVMH, Compagnie Financière Richemont, or Swatch Group.⁵³³³⁴ The primary operating subsidiary is Manufacture d’Horlogerie Audemars Piguet SA, which holds active membership in the Responsible Jewellery Council (RJC) and adherence to the Kimberley Process Certification Scheme (KPCS) for diamond traceability.³⁵³⁶³⁷

Relevant Israeli Entity:

• Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd (Israeli corporate registration no. 516319738)⁴¹³
• Address: Rothschild Boulevard 13, 6688116 Tel Aviv-Yafo⁴²⁹¹³
• Function: Combined retail boutique (AP House), after-sales service centre, and hospitality venue; functions as legal importer of record for AP watches and spare parts entering Israel under the brand²⁴
• Directionality: Inward - sells AP watches to Israeli civilian consumers; not a supplier of inputs to any Israeli defence prime or state body

Other Named Subsidiaries

• Audemars Piguet (Suisse) SA: Swiss trading and distribution entity⁶
• Inhotec SA (Le Locle; majority stake acquired August 2025): Precision-machining specialist supplying watch components; no identified Israeli defence prime customer³¹³²
• Audemars Piguet Renaud et Papi (APRP): Complicated-movement atelier; documented client base consists exclusively of luxury watch brands (Richard Mille, Cartier, Chanel, Harry Winston, Franck Muller); no defence-sector client identified³⁸
• AP House format venues (global): London, New York, Hong Kong, Zurich, Munich, Milan, Paris, Geneva - Tel Aviv is included in this network with no special geopolitical framing^3940294142

Non-Affiliation Notes

The Israel Hayom newspaper is owned by the Miriam Adelson family; it is not owned by or affiliated with any member of the Audemars family. An unfounded connection sometimes drawn between AP and that publication is a confirmed non-issue.²⁴ The prior research suggestion that a director of Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd could be matched to an officer of an Israeli settlement-area real-estate group is unverified - no primary corporate filing, named press profile, or shared registry record confirming dual directorship was identified; it is not treated as a finding of any military or settlement nexus.⁴³

Domain Summaries

Military: Military

Finding: No public evidence identified of any military or defence nexus.

Mechanism of Involvement

No direct or indirect mechanism of involvement between Audemars Piguet and the Israeli military, defence, or security sector has been identified. AP’s documented output is exclusively civilian luxury mechanical timepieces - the Royal Oak, Royal Oak Offshore, Code 11.59, and Millenary lines - with no ruggedised, mil-spec, or tactical product variant.⁶⁷ AP is not an exhibitor or participant at any defence exhibition (DSEI, Eurosatory); its exhibition activity is confined to watch-industry and luxury-trade events.⁶

On the specific question of materials: AP adapted forged-carbon composite technology from aerospace for use in watch cases (introduced 2007, Royal Oak Offshore “Alinghi”), but in this relationship AP is a downstream consumer of aerospace-derived process know-how applied to luxury goods, not an upstream component supplier to any aerospace or defence manufacturer.⁴⁴⁴⁵ No AP supply of forged-carbon, ceramic, precious-metal, or composite material to any military or defence end-user - or to any military specification - has been identified.⁴⁴ Inhotec SA, AP’s precision-machining subsidiary acquired in 2025, is documented exclusively as a watch-component supplier to the horology industry; no supply relationship with Elbit Systems, IAI, Rafael, or IMI has been identified.³¹³² APRP’s client base is exclusively luxury watch brands; no defence-sector client is on record.³⁸

On munitions and strategic platforms: AP’s industrial output (mechanical movements, cases, dials, bracelets) has no documented intersection with small arms, artillery, armoured vehicles, unmanned aerial systems, naval vessels, Iron Dome, David’s Sling, the Arrow system, F-35I “Adir,” Merkava tanks, or Sa’ar-class corvettes.⁶⁷ No Israeli export-control record, SECO dual-use licence, end-user certificate, or technology-transfer authorisation relating to AP products was identified in any reviewed jurisdiction.⁶

Structural context on IDF equipment: AP watches retail from roughly USD 25,000 upward, a price point positioning AP in haute horlogerie. Independent watch-industry reporting documents the IDF’s de facto field timepieces as inexpensive rugged digital watches - principally Casio G-Shock today - at mass-issue price points wholly distinct from AP’s market.⁴⁶⁴⁷

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

The strongest counter-argument in AP’s favour is structural: AP is a civilian luxury goods manufacturer with no documented defence contract history, no defence-sector revenue, and no military heritage narrative in its branding.⁶²⁴ It does not appear in the Who Profits Research Center database, the AFSC Investigate database, or the UN OHCHR settlements-business database - the principal accountability databases tracking defence-adjacent corporate activity in relation to Israeli settlements.^11124849

The subsidiary Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd is confirmed as an inward-facing retail and distribution vehicle - selling watches to Israeli civilian consumers - and its directionality is documented as such in the corporate structure.⁵⁰⁴³ No defence-supply function is attributable to it.

The principal documented consumer-campaign activity concerning AP and Israel runs opposite to a military-complicity allegation: a January 2019 Change.org petition (with StandWithUs social-media posts) alleged that AP had decided to stop selling watches in Israel while continuing to sell in neighbouring Arab markets, and demanded equal market access.⁵¹⁵² AP subsequently entered the Israeli market in 2021 and opened AP House Tel Aviv. No campaign - on any side - identifies AP as an arms exporter or military supplier.⁵¹⁵²

Evidence limit: AP’s extended supplier base (gold, gems, steel, ceramics, sub-components) has not been comprehensively mapped at sub-tier level for indirect links to Israeli defence primes. No such link was identified, but sub-tier opacity is an inherent public-disclosure gap that cannot be closed from available sources.⁴³ This limitation is documented honestly: it is an absence of identified evidence, not evidence of absence.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Digital: Digital

Finding: No confirmed Israeli-origin digital or technology supply relationship with direct Israeli military nexus has been identified. Several vendor relationships are partially evidenced but require live verification.

Mechanism of Involvement

The digital audit examined AP’s enterprise technology stack, surveillance and retail technology, cloud infrastructure, defence/intelligence technology relationships, and AI/autonomous systems for any Israeli-nexus pathway.

Israeli-origin technology vendor findings:

• AppsFlyer (Herzliya, Israel): A Campaign Middle East trade publication (June 2024) reportedly lists AppsFlyer as a “Tech Partner” in an AP × Spider-Man campaign activation.¹⁰ This is the most clearly scoped Israeli-origin vendor relationship in the evidence base. However, it is a secondary-source trade listing for a peripheral commercial relationship (mobile advertising attribution analytics, not core business systems) and could not be live-confirmed in this session.¹⁰ Evidence level: plausible, secondary-source, requires live confirmation.
• Zscaler: A professional profile posted by Romain Bourdy, a former AP Technical Information Security Officer, on Malt.ch reportedly documents his responsibility for migrating AP’s enterprise traffic security from Blue Coat to Zscaler.⁹ If accurate, this would represent an embedded critical-infrastructure deployment - Zscaler’s Zero Trust Exchange inspects all enterprise internet traffic. Zscaler holds material Israeli R&D through acquisitions (Canonic Security 2022, Avalor 2024).⁹ Evidence level: single-source professional profile, requires live verification of the Malt.ch post; the strongest single digital finding, but not independently confirmed.
• SAP Customer Data Cloud / Gigya (Tel Aviv origin, acquired by SAP 2017): AP plausibly uses SAP for enterprise ERP (inferred from a 2024 job posting listing SAP proficiency⁵³), and Gigya/SAP CDC is commonly bundled in SAP ecosystems. However, no AP press release, SAP case study, or technographic record confirming an active Gigya/SAP CDC contract was identified.⁵⁴ Evidence level: structurally plausible but unverified.
• CyberArk (Petah Tikva, Israel): Inferred from the fact that AP has been named in open-source threat intelligence as a Scattered Spider/Octo Tempest target, combined with the general targeting of CyberArk environments by that group.⁵⁵⁵⁶⁵⁷ The logical chain from “named as a target” to “confirmed CyberArk deployment” is weak. Evidence level: unverified; inference only.
• CrowdStrike: Same Scattered Spider targeting inference applies; CrowdStrike’s Israeli R&D footprint (Preempt Security acquisition 2020) is documented but its deployment at AP is not.⁵⁵⁵⁶⁵⁸ Evidence level: unverified.
• Salesforce: Inferred from a ShinyHunters threat-actor campaign targeting luxury and retail brands via Salesforce platform misconfigurations.⁵⁹ Victim status in a platform-level attack does not confirm AP as a Salesforce CRM customer. Evidence level: unverified.
• makemepulse (confirmed): A publicly published agency case study confirms collaboration with AP on “The House of Wonders” digital campaign.⁶⁰ makemepulse is a French digital studio with no identified Israeli ownership or Israeli technology-stack dependency. Evidence level: confirmed from public primary source.

Structurally inapplicable sub-categories: Project Nimbus (AP is not a cloud services provider and is structurally ineligible)⁶¹; military/intelligence contracts (AP has no such products or services)⁶¹; AI/autonomous systems (AP manufactures mechanical movements)⁶¹; facial recognition or Israeli-origin retail surveillance technology (none identified)⁶²⁶¹.

“Unit 8200 alumni” framing note: Several Israeli-origin vendors (CyberArk, Check Point lineage, Wiz) have been subject to analytical framing in which their Israeli military-intelligence talent pipelines are cited as amplifying risk factors. This framing reflects a documented structural feature of the Israeli technology sector but does not establish a specific AP procurement relationship with any vendor, nor that any such vendor has used government-adjacent capabilities in AP’s deployment context. Where vendor relationships themselves are unconfirmed, the Unit 8200 framing adds no evidentiary weight.⁶¹

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

AP’s strongest counter-argument in the digital domain is the absence of confirmed procurement relationships with Israeli-origin technology vendors. Even for the most substantive finding - Zscaler - the evidence is a single professional profile. Without live confirmation of the Malt.ch post, this relationship cannot be treated as established. For AppsFlyer, the trade publication listing concerns a peripheral marketing-technology function (mobile attribution analytics), not a foundational enterprise system, and represents a significantly lower-risk relationship category.

The inference-based claims (CyberArk, CrowdStrike, Salesforce) are particularly weak: being named in threat-intelligence reporting as a target of a threat actor does not confirm the specific security tooling deployed. Threat actors target company types and scales, not only confirmed customers of specific vendors.

AP does not develop cybersecurity products, surveillance systems, AI tools, or autonomous systems - it is a consumer of enterprise technology, not a developer or exporter of it. Any Israeli-nexus digital pathway would therefore be indirect and subordinate (enterprise tool selection), not a primary business function.

Evidence limit: The AppsFlyer and Zscaler findings - the two most relevant Israeli-nexus relationships - are each supported by a single or secondary source and could not be live-verified in this audit session. Both are noted as requiring direct confirmation from primary sources before being treated as established findings.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Economic: Economic

Finding: Audemars Piguet has a documented economic presence in Israel through a wholly-owned subsidiary and flagship retail investment. No economic activity in occupied territories has been identified. Diamond sourcing via the Israeli Diamond Exchange is structurally possible but unconfirmed at the contract level.

Mechanism of Involvement

Israeli subsidiary and importer-of-record role: Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd (corp. ID 516319738) is registered at Rothschild Boulevard 13, Tel Aviv-Yafo, and is listed in AP’s own official subsidiary disclosure.¹⁴⁶³¹³ As the locally incorporated entity operating the AP House - combining retail boutique, after-sales service, and hospitality - it functions as the de facto legal importer of record for AP watches and spare parts entering Israel under the brand.²⁴ This establishes a direct and structural economic relationship between AP’s corporate group and the Israeli market, governed by Israeli corporate law.

AP House Tel Aviv investment: The Rothschild Boulevard 13 venue is a 1925 Art Deco building within Tel Aviv’s UNESCO White City conservation zone.¹⁴ The AP House format - executed in cities including Munich³⁹⁶⁴ and Milan⁴⁰ - represents a materially larger capital commitment than a conventional retail lease, incorporating experiential retail design, hospitality fit-out, and heritage-building restoration. Precise lease terms and fit-out costs are not publicly disclosed, but the format’s investment character is established by its documented global exclusivity.³⁹⁴⁰⁶⁴ The arrangement is understood to be a commercial lease; no freehold real estate ownership by AP in Israel has been identified.¹²

Tax obligations: As a locally incorporated entity, Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd is structurally subject to Israeli corporate income tax (23% statutory rate), VAT on retail sales, National Insurance Institute payroll contributions, and Arnona municipal property tax - generating direct fiscal contributions to the Israeli state.⁴ These obligations derive from applicable Israeli law rather than disclosed AP filings.

Diamond sourcing: AP’s manufacturing entity holds active RJC membership and adheres to KPCS for diamond traceability, with a stated policy of not sourcing diamonds from Conflict-Affected and High-Risk Areas (CAHRAs) under OECD Due Diligence Guidance.³⁶³⁷³⁵ Israel is not designated as a CAHRA under KP, OECD, or RJC frameworks.³⁷ No direct, contract-level evidence of AP sourcing from Israeli Diamond Exchange dealers, IDE sightholders, or Israeli cutting/polishing houses has been identified in any AP sustainability disclosure or RJC filing.^363735151617 The Israeli Diamond Exchange (IDE, Ramat Gan) is a major global diamond hub and a structural possibility for AP’s supply chain, but this is an inferential, industry-level argument - not a confirmed AP–Israeli supplier relationship.¹⁵¹⁶¹⁷ Status: unverified analytical inference; no public evidence of a direct AP–Israeli diamond firm relationship.

Historical authorised retail: Padani Jewellers Ltd, Tel Aviv, operated as an authorised AP retailer during 2014–2015, evidenced by warranty certificates bearing AP–Padani stamps.²⁵²⁶ Whether Padani continues as an active authorised wholesale partner after 2020 - alongside or supplementing the direct AP House channel - is not confirmed by any post-2020 public source.²⁵ Status: unverified for ongoing relationship.

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

AP’s strongest economic counter-arguments are as follows:

1. No occupied-territory presence. The sole Israeli operational location is in internationally recognised Tel Aviv-Yafo, not in the West Bank, East Jerusalem, or any settlement zone.¹²²⁹¹³ AP does not appear in the UN OHCHR settlements-business database or the Who Profits Research Center database.^1112484920

2. Tax contribution framing. The Israeli corporate tax and VAT paid by a single retail subsidiary is standard fiscal compliance, not a targeted economic contribution to military or settlement activity. AP’s tax obligations are structurally indistinguishable from those of any foreign company operating in Israel and do not represent a preferential or extralegal benefit to the Israeli state.

3. Diamond sourcing policy. AP’s RJC membership, KPCS adherence, and stated CAHRA exclusion policy represent documented due-diligence commitments covering responsible sourcing of diamonds, gold, and platinum group metals.³⁶³⁷³⁵ No regulatory action or NGO investigation has identified AP as sourcing from disputed or occupied-territory mining or cutting operations.

4. RJC and OECD frameworks. These are audited, multi-stakeholder frameworks with third-party verification. Their existence and AP’s documented participation provide an exculpatory due-diligence framework even if specific supplier disclosures are not public.

5. Scale of Israeli operation. AP is a global luxury manufacturer with a presence in dozens of markets. The Tel Aviv AP House represents one of many global locations and is not described in any AP corporate disclosure as a priority, strategic, or otherwise differentiated market.³⁶³⁷ No country-level revenue breakdown identifies Israel as a material contributor.

Evidence limits to acknowledge:

• The diamond-sourcing inference via IDE is structurally grounded but not confirmed at the contract level; it cannot be treated as a confirmed finding.
• Precise investment value, employment figures, and profit repatriation data for the Israeli subsidiary are not publicly disclosed; the economic presence is established but its material scale relative to AP’s global operations is not quantified.
• Padani Jewellers’ current authorised-retailer status is unverified post-2020.

Named Entities and Evidence Map

Political: Political

Finding: No documented political advocacy, lobbying, financial contributions to state-linked organisations, or engagement with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in either direction has been identified. AP’s public silence on the conflict contrasts with its documented 2022 withdrawal from Russia.

Mechanism of Involvement

Corporate communications on Israel-Palestine: No public statement by Audemars Piguet regarding the October 2023 Gaza war, the occupation of Palestinian territories, or Palestinian civilian casualties has been identified in trade press (WatchPro, Hodinkee, Revolution), major news archives, or AP’s own newsroom through April 2026.²⁴ AP’s communications during this period focused on product launches (Royal Oak 50th anniversary extensions), the CEO appointment (Ilaria Resta, January 2024),³⁰ and environmental sustainability programming.²⁴ No geopolitical commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict was identified in any source class examined.

The Russia contrast (documented differential): AP’s 2022 withdrawal from the Russian market is publicly documented and confirmed by the Leave Russia tracker, The Guardian, and SWI swissinfo.ch.²³¹⁸²² AP watches were reportedly seized by Russian security services in approximately March 2022 in apparent retaliation for Swiss sanctions compliance, and AP’s departure was indexed among over 1,000 companies that curtailed Russian operations following the February 2022 invasion.^1822232728 No equivalent ethical review, brand communication, or operational reassessment regarding the Israeli market has been publicly documented.²³ This differential is documented as an observation; it does not constitute a legal or ethical determination.

Market framing of Israeli operations: The November 2021 Israel Hayom announcement framed the incoming AP House as a luxury brand expansion with no geopolitical qualification.³ AP’s own store locator presents Tel Aviv identically to Paris, Geneva, New York, Munich, and Milan.²⁹ The official subsidiaries list treats Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd as a standard commercial entity with no special context.⁶³

Lobbying and financial contributions: No lobbying registrations in US (FARA/LDA), EU Transparency Register, or Swiss lobbying records in connection with Israel, Palestine, boycott legislation, or regional trade policy have been identified.⁶⁵ No material financial contributions to FIDF, JNF, settlement organisations, AIPAC, or equivalent bodies have been identified in any reviewed source class.⁶⁵ AP’s institutional commitments are documented through the AP Foundation and sustainability programming; no grant to a political advocacy organisation, settlement group, or conflict-related Israeli institution has been identified.³⁰

Board-level affiliations: No AP executive - CEO Ilaria Resta, Chairman Alessandro Bogliolo, Vice Chairman Olivier Audemars, or Board Chair Jasmine Audemars - has been identified as holding a board seat, advisory role, or leadership position in AIPAC, FIDF, JNF, American Friends of the Weizmann Institute, or equivalent political bodies.³⁰ The claim that Ilaria Resta held operational oversight of a specific Israeli Firmenich subsidiary (“Negev Aroma (Ramat Hovav) Ltd”) cannot be corroborated and is not treated as an established finding.³⁰

BDS and civil society: No BDS campaign targeting Audemars Piguet has been identified in BDS Movement target lists, Who Profits Research Center, BADIL Resource Centre, or any NGO database.¹⁹²⁰²¹ No organised consumer boycott, divestment petition, or sanctions campaign against AP regarding Israeli operations has been identified.

Legal and regulatory scrutiny: No legal actions, regulatory investigations, or sanctions designations against AP related to Israeli operations have been identified in Swiss, EU, US, or Israeli legal records through April 2026.¹³²¹

Counter-Arguments and Evidence Limits

AP’s strongest political counter-arguments are the following:

1. No political advocacy identified. AP has not lobbied for or against any legislation related to the conflict, has not funded any identified political organisation on either side, and has not made any public statement aligning with either Israeli or Palestinian government positions.⁶⁵²⁴ The political domain finding is driven by the existence of the Tel Aviv commercial presence, not by any affirmative political act.

2. No BDS targeting. The absence of AP from BDS Movement target lists, Who Profits databases, and UN settlement databases is itself exculpatory - these databases have identified hundreds of companies with documented settlement, defence, and dual-use relationships, and AP does not appear in them.^111248491920

3. Consumer campaign ran opposite to military-complicity narrative. The 2019 Change.org petition and StandWithUs campaign demanded that AP continue selling in Israel - framing AP as discriminatory for allegedly exiting the Israeli market, not as a military supplier.⁵¹⁵² The existence of this campaign and AP’s subsequent entry into the Israeli market in 2021 provides a documented context in which AP’s Israeli presence was sought by pro-Israel advocates, not condemned by pro-Palestinian campaigners.

4. Family independence from state-linked ownership. AP is privately held by the founding families with no state-linked ownership, golden shares, or government equity stake. The Israel Hayom newspaper ownership confusion is a confirmed non-issue - that publication is owned by the Miriam Adelson family.²⁴

Evidence limits to acknowledge:

• The differential between AP’s documented Russia withdrawal and its continued Israeli operations is a documented factual asymmetry, not a conclusion AP itself has addressed or explained. The reasons for this differential are not established in the evidence base.
• The specific social composition, attendee profiles, or state-sector guest targeting of AP House Tel Aviv events is not documented in any available source. Claims of such events serving as instruments of “Brand Israel” sponsorship are not supported by the evidence reviewed.
• AP’s membership in the Israel-Switzerland Chamber of Commerce (ISCC) - cited in a 2022 ISCC booklet - is not independently corroborated and is not treated as an established finding.⁶⁵

Named Entities and Evidence Map

BDS-1000 Score (V4)

Score Table

• V_MAX: 3.86 Sum_OTHERS: 2.00
• BRS Score: 266 Tier: D (Moderate)

Score Narrative

V_MAX = 3.86 (Economic) is driven entirely by Audemars Piguet’s documented economic presence in Israel through Audemars Piguet Tel-Aviv Ltd - a wholly-owned subsidiary operating the AP House at Rothschild Boulevard 13 as a combined retail boutique, hospitality venue, and after-sales service centre, and functioning as the legal importer of record for AP watches entering Israel. This represents a direct, physical, and continuing commercial presence in the Israeli market, generating corporate tax, VAT, and payroll obligations under Israeli law, and embedded within a heritage-listed property in Tel Aviv’s UNESCO White City. No occupied-territory operations, no settlement investment, and no identified defence-linked economic activity are present; the economic vector rests on standard commercial presence in recognised Israeli territory.

Political = 2.00 reflects documented silence on the conflict (I=2.0) combined with a differential that warranted an elevated Proximity score (P=7.0): AP’s publicly documented 2022 withdrawal from the Russian market contrasts with its continued Israeli operations - a factual asymmetry documented in the evidence base that AP has not publicly addressed. The Magnitude score (M=7) reflects the brand’s global profile as a Tier 1 luxury watchmaker.

Military = 0.00 and Digital = 0.00 reflect comprehensive forensic audit coverage that found no documented military/defence nexus (Military) and no confirmed Israeli-origin digital technology supply relationship (Digital). The Digital zero reflects the evidentiary standard applied: the Zscaler and AppsFlyer findings are noted as single-source or secondary-source and require live verification before being treated as established; the CyberArk, CrowdStrike, and Salesforce claims rest on inference from threat-intelligence targeting rather than confirmed procurement records.

Tier D (Moderate) reflects a BRS of 266, placing AP in the Moderate range. The Moderate designation is consistent with a company that has a documented economic presence in Israel (constituting a direct financial relationship with the Israeli economy) but is not implicated in military, settlement, or political-advocacy activity. The Tier D classification is reduced from higher tiers precisely because the human vetting process - which examined and in some cases zeroed or reduced allegations that did not withstand verification - found no defence nexus, no occupied-territory footprint, and no confirmed Israeli-origin technology supply chain relationship.

Method note: The BRS scale is evidence-only, derived from scale-free Impact × Magnitude × Proximity scoring applied consistently across all companies. All scores have been reviewed and fixed through human vetting. Divested or exited operations are discounted; wrong-entity attributions are removed; fabricated or inferred claims are excluded.

Methodology Note

• Evidence-only from four domain audits: All factual claims in this dossier trace to forensic findings in the Military, Digital, Economic, and Political audits. No claim is made that exceeds the evidence base documented in those audits.
• Scale-free Impact = activity type: I scores encode the type of activity (military vs. economic vs. political), not the scale of the company’s revenues or headcount. This prevents large companies from automatically scoring higher than small ones.
• Magnitude = scale: M reflects the quantitative scale or depth of involvement, assessed independently of the activity type.
• Proximity = directness: P encodes how directly the activity connects to the Israeli-Palestinian context - whether the company is a primary actor, a direct supplier, or an indirect/economic participant.
• Temporal rule - divested/exited operations: Operations that AP has exited or divested (e.g., Russia 2022) are documented but scored as historical/mitigated. Current operations drive the active scores.
• Entity attribution - no transitive guilt: Subsidiaries, suppliers, and sister companies are assessed independently. AP is not scored for the activities of LVMH, Richemont, or Swatch Group companies (AP is independently owned), nor are Israeli subsidiaries scored as defence actors absent documented evidence of defence-supply functions.
• Settlement operations dual-count for Economic + Political: Where a company operates in Israeli settlements, the economic presence scores in both Economic and Political. AP has no documented settlement-territory operations.
• “No public evidence identified” where checks found nothing: This formulation is used throughout the dossier wherever the audits explicitly recorded that checks found no evidence. It reflects the audit’s evidentiary finding, not a conclusive determination of non-existence.
• Unverified and unverifiable claims carried with caveats or excluded: Claims marked unverified in the audits (e.g., Zscaler, AppsFlyer, director-identity inference, Padani Jewellers’ current status, diamond sourcing via IDE) are presented as unverified with their caveat status maintained. They are not hardened into confirmed findings.

End Notes

End of dossier BDS-1000-06-MD. All claims trace to the four domain audits (Military June 2026; Digital, Economic, Political 2026-05-01). Scores are final V4 human-vetted values and must not be altered. Claims marked unverified are carried with that caveat and are not hardened into confirmed findings.