[Fokamul]

Yes this is very bizarre.

But this is official story, contractors and employees who worked for Czech arms manufacturer got their personal! accounts disabled.

They had mortgages in these accounts and bank notify them to move mortgage elsewhere.

Reason given by bank, broken internal policy, we cannot disclose which. Goodbye.

https://militarnyi.com/en/news/czech-banks-discriminate-agai...

[joe_mamba]

>Reason given by bank, broken internal policy, we cannot disclose which. Ridiculous.

I'm sure what they did was illegal, the problem with such cases is that even if you take them to court and win, you'll still lose a lot of time, money and stress in the process of fighting a bank in court, while for the bank the lawsuit is just another small business expense.

Centrain industries and businesses tend to act above the law even if they know they're in the wrong simply because the punishments if they get caught are too lax.

That's why I'm a big fan of direct personal accountability. Like the person working at the bank who made the choice to close the accounts should go to jail. Because otherwise nefarious people simply hide behind the accountability shield of a large org where nobody is responsible for anything and accountability is always deflected.

[econ]

Like big tech they may refuse service when they like to (which is crazy)

[l23k4]

Why is it crazy? EU has the "basic payment account" scheme which makes sure that ultimately nobody is left without a bank account.

[econ]

Yeah, so they say.

The eu it self has a faceless committee that debanks people without a day in court or any oversight.

The us also freely debanks people (and their family!) in the eu without any kind of legal process.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/opinion/article/2025/07/26/europea...

Banks are said to be required to state a reason for refusing or freezing an account but at the same time they may not disclose reporting you.

So they are pretty much free to not respond.

https://www.eccnet.eu/news/ecc-net-calls-stronger-enforcemen...

[joe_mamba]

>The eu it self has a faceless committee that debanks people without a day in court or any oversight.

Yepo, that's scarier to me than big-tech closing my email account. The issue is HN users defend the EU on its trigger happy ability to debank its citizen without a court trial.

[l23k4]

>The eu it self has a faceless committee that debanks people without a day in court or any oversight.

Which committee is that?

>Banks are said to be required to state a reason for refusing or freezing an account

Such requirements tend to exist only in the case of basic PAD accounts.

>but at the same time they may not disclose reporting you.

So? Reporting you does nothing.

[econ]

If they think you are a fraudster or terrorist (etc) they have to refuse giving you an account and must silently report you. What would happen if they skip/delay the reporting part?

[dormento]

> Reason given by bank, broken internal policy, we cannot disclose which. Goodbye.

Wow this sucks. One thing I took from this comment (and the previous one), if you allow me to (badly) synthesize is: we might need less policy making and more policy enforcement.

[l23k4]

Why? It's because of enforcement the bank is doing this.

The policies don't prohibit banks from getting rid of risky customers, they actively encourage it.

[joe_mamba]

What policies of local legal framework and the bank define as a "rksy customer" might vary completely.

For example many EU banks refuse service to US citizens due to them still being tax liable in their own country and the banks not waiting to deal with that shit. Or they refuse service to Iranians, Russians or other nationalities in case of conflicts. That's the definition of a risky customer and they're legally allowed to bail on.

But working legally in your nations arms industry is not the definition of a risky customer because you're a legal citizen with rights in your own country, your arms company operates legally with all the checks and approvals of the government, and the banks should as well. Therefore there's no risks coming from the customer here to the local bank because neither you or the employer are doing anything in gray legal areas to be a risk.

[l23k4]

>What policies of local legal framework and the bank define as a "rksy customer" might vary completely.

No they don't? Your next sentence demonstrates as much:

> For example many EU banks refuse service to US citizens due to them still being tax liable in their own country and the banks not waiting to deal with that shit

Local jurisdiction makes fuck all difference. Ignoring foreign regulations would be suicidal for a bank which wants to take part in international commerce.

> But working legally in your nations arms industry is not the definition of a risky customer because you're a legal citizen with rights in your own country, your arms company operates legally with all the checks and approvals of the government, and the banks should as well

Any bank picks up a very significant regulatory burden by engaging in transactions with such an entity. The idea that any bank could just assume that an arms manufacturer is fully compliant because the Czech government allows them to exist is hilarious.

[hilios]

What is the french owned bank you're referring to? Your article mentions ČSOB (Belgian ownership)and Česká spořitelna (Austrian ownership). The source [1] also mentions issues with Fio bank, which according to Wikipedia has Czech owners. The source also attributes this to ESG rules, rather than supplying weapons to Ukraine. Last year, the European Commission launched a legislative initiative designed to make it easier for arms manufacturers to secure funding, including by clarifying the rules within the ESG framework regarding prohibited weapons.[2] I therefore find it hard to believe that the EU deliberately brought about the incidents described. Regardless of this, I do not consider it sensible to conflate the issues of ‘private gun ownership’ and ‘the financing of arms companies’.

[1]https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/ekonomika/ceska-ekonomika/na-hypo...

[2]https://defence-industry-space.ec.europa.eu/eu-defence-indus...

[l23k4]

Why is this supposed to be surprising? These kinds of customers are a huge compliance burden for the bank, why should the banks keep doing business with customers that most likely cost them money?

[joe_mamba]

Because the Czech branch of the French bank operates under Czech not French laws. French rules don't have jurisdiction in Czechia.

[l23k4]

That has nothing to do with why this is happening.

[joe_mamba]

What's your argument on this? Because nothing that I said is wrong.

[l23k4]

The "because" part is wrong. Also, FWIW, countries in the EU don't just get to make their own banking rules.

I don't have an argument, you are simply misunderstanding what's happening here.

Closing accounts that belong to high risk customers who aren't making you a bunch of money is an entirely normal and legal thing to do.

EU solved this a long time ago, you have the right to a "basic payment account". Just not necessarily from the bank of your choice. The accounts closed here were not such accounts.

[joe_mamba]

> countries in the EU don't just get to make their own banking rules.

They 100% do.

>Closing accounts that belong to high risk customers who aren't making you a bunch of money is an entirely normal and legal thing to do.

It isn't a legal thing to do because they didn't give a reason why. ANd if they do give a reason it must be legal to the local legal framework. Is being in the weapons industry a legal argument by Czech laws to close someone's account?