De-banking: when can a bank actually close the account?

Losing your bank account can be existential for a business — no account means no payments and no operations. A recent judgment of the Amsterdam District Court (17 June 2026, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2026:6146) confirms that a bank cannot simply pull the plug, even when a client has fallen short on compliance.

The bank's gatekeeper role

Banks are gatekeepers to the financial system. Under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft) and the sanctions rules, they must know their clients, monitor transactions and, in defined cases, even terminate a relationship. That role is legitimate and important — but it is not a blank cheque to close an account whenever the bank prefers to.

What the court decided

In the Amsterdam case the bank wanted to end the relationship because the client had fallen short on its compliance and sanctions obligations. The interim relief judge nonetheless ordered the bank to continue the relationship for now. Two points were decisive: it was not sufficiently plausible that the Wwft actually obliged the bank to terminate, and a balancing of interests made termination unacceptable under the standards of reasonableness and fairness — not least because the client could not readily obtain comparable banking elsewhere.

Duty of care and proportionality

A bank's legitimate wish to limit integrity risks does not, in itself, amount to a sufficiently weighty ground to end a relationship. Courts weigh the bank's interests against the client's dependence on access to payment services, the availability of alternatives, and whether the risks can be contained by less drastic measures — monitoring, conditions or a transition period — rather than outright termination.

What this means for businesses

Keep your compliance organisation demonstrably in order; it is your strongest position if a bank threatens to leave. Engage proactively — document how you mitigate risks and keep the bank informed. And if a bank announces termination, examine closely whether there is a genuine Wwft obligation or another weighty ground, and map your alternatives: both weigh heavily before a court.

De-banking is on the rise, but this ruling is a useful reminder that a bank cannot end a relationship lightly. A well-documented compliance posture — and a clear view of your alternatives — can make the difference between keeping and losing access to the financial system.

This blog provides general information and is not legal advice. For advice on a specific situation, please contact us.