When financial institutions debank customers, then livelihoods, reputations, and access to essential funds can vanish with a single notice, often without a clear explanation; now, policymakers are pushing for risk-based, transparent standards
Key insights:
-
-
-
Debanking can have harsh consequences — Losing a bank relationship can abruptly cut off finances and damage reputations, often excluding people and firms from basic economic life, often without a clear explanation.
-
The core tension for banks — Financial institutions need to balance the risk between AML/KYC and fraud versus preserving fair access to financial services. As reputational and ideological factors enter into decision-making, concerns about discretion and due process grow.
-
Policy is moving toward guardrails — Already many policymakers are pushing for clearer documentation, transparent notices, a common-sense path to appeal, and a bright line between financial‑crime risk and other risks.
-
-
Financial institutions serve as the foundation of the modern economy. Nearly every transaction — from paying for services to buying a cup of coffee — depends on an institution that facilitates or underwrites these exchanges. In this interconnected system, access to banking relationships has become essential for meaningful economic participation for individuals and organizations.
This dependence creates significant consequences for society. Without access to banking services, both businesses and individuals face significant barriers to participating in the economy. Businesses cannot easily pay their employees, fulfill tax obligations, or conduct basic commercial activities. Similarly, individuals struggle to receive payments and manage their personal finances. When institutions terminate these relationships, they effectively exclude people and businesses from the broader economic system. This reality applies to both traditional banks and modern FinTech companies.
Given banking relationships’ critical role in economic participation, the circumstances under which these relationships end deserve careful examination. Financial institutions face ongoing challenges in determining which customers they can serve while meeting regulatory obligations and business objectives. This decision-making process has evolved and can ultimately lead to what experts call debanking — a practice that involves closing accounts and terminating interactions between debanked individuals or organizations and the financial institutions doing the debanking.
What debanking is — and isn’t
The impact of debanking extends far beyond the inconvenience of closing an account. Affected individuals may face extended periods without access to essential funds needed for survival, and they often suffer lasting reputational damage that may cause other financial institutions to reject them as well. Most concerning, however, is that banks rarely provide clear explanations for debanking decisions, leaving individuals unable to address potential misunderstandings or prevent future occurrences.
Without access to banking services, both businesses and individuals face significant barriers to participating in the economy.
This lack of transparency and the cascading effects of banking exclusion demonstrate the profound power that financial institutions hold in determining who can fully participate in the modern economy. This also causes concern about who holds this power and how it can ultimately be kept in check.
Not surprisingly, the concept of debanking has become a contentious issue in the financial sector, with proponents and critics presenting varying perspectives on its implications. At its core, debanking most often occurs when financial institutions terminate or refuse to establish customer relationships, often due to concerns about risk management or regulatory compliance.
Financial institutions argue that debanking is a necessary measure to mitigate potential risks, such as money laundering, terrorist financing, and other fraudulent activities by certain individuals or businesses. By terminating these illicit customer relationships, banks aim to protect themselves from reputational damage, financial losses, and regulatory penalties while maintaining financial system integrity and adhering to anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations.
Critics, on the other hand, argue that debanking can have unintended consequences, particularly for marginalized communities and individuals who may not have access to alternative financial services. This can lead to financial exclusion, making it difficult for people to access basic banking services, such as deposit accounts, credit, and payment processing services.
However, the scope and application of debanking practices have expanded beyond traditional risk-based criteria. Questions have emerged regarding the appropriateness of account closures based on reputational concerns, political associations, or ideological considerations. This broader application has intensified public discourse about the boundaries of institutional discretion and the potential implications for financial inclusion.
Policymakers now are working to ensure that banks can address genuine risks without discriminating against customers based on their lawful views.
To navigate this issue, financial institutions need to follow a balanced approach. This involves enhancing transparency, providing channels for appeal or alternative services, and refining regulations to define acceptable grounds for debanking. The goal is to maintain a secure and inclusive financial system that effectively manages risk while protecting the interests of ordinary citizens and legitimate businesses.
Policymakers get involved
In response to concerns that non-financial factors may influence these decisions, an Executive Order was issued by the Trump administration in August to establish clearer guidelines for banking institutions, requiring that account management decisions be based primarily on financial and risk-related criteria. The order seeks to standardize practices across the industry and provide greater transparency in the decision-making process for account closures and financial service terminations.
In September, at the Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists (ACAMS) Assembly held in Las Vegas, Mike Greenman, Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel of Financial Crimes Legal at US Bank, emphasized the critical importance that financial institutions present clear documentation for when and how debanking decisions were made about specific industries. Greenman strongly advised institutions to “always separate financial crime risk from other risks.”
Looking ahead at debanking
The issue of debanking has garnered attention due to high-profile cases and concerns about potential misuse. Investigations in several countries have found no evidence of widespread politically motivated debanking, but the perception of potential abuse has led many critics to re-examine this practice. Policymakers now are working to ensure that banks can address genuine risks without discriminating against customers based on their lawful views.
To navigate this issue, a balanced approach is necessary, one that involves enhancing transparency, providing channels for appeal or alternative services, and refining regulations to define acceptable grounds for debanking. The goal for financial institutions should be to maintain a secure and inclusive financial system that effectively manages risk while protecting the interests of ordinary citizens and legitimate businesses.
You can find out more about the regulatory challenges that financial institutions face here
