De-banking and crypto – will the landscape be positively changed by the introduction of new rules for both?

We are increasingly approached by individuals who have had their personal and/or business bank account(s) closed in circumstances involving crypto transactions despite being adamant that there has been no breach of any of the bank’s Terms and Conditions or applicable laws and regulations.

In some scenarios, the decision by the bank to close the bank account(s) would have been taken in error, and being in this unfair situation can have a hugely detrimental effect on the person and any business due to the wide-ranging, complex and adverse consequences.

However, the introduction of proposed UK regulations governing cryptoassets and stricter rules aimed at preventing de-banking should help reduce the incidence of unfair crypto-related de-banking decisions.

What are the proposed new rules relating to the UK regulation of cryptoassets?

In a recent article, we examined the draft UK legislation designed to regulate cryptoassets and concluded that the new rules should bring much needed clarity to both the regulatory and legal landscapes surrounding cryptoassets:

UK crypto regulation – a much-needed update on the current state of UK crypto regulation

In a subsequent article, we provided a broader update:

2025 update on crypto regulation: a legal overview

What are the proposed rules to protect against de-banking?

In a recent article, we outlined the proposed new rules aimed at  preventing de-banking, which include extending the notice period the banks have to give before closing a customer’s account (i.e. de-banking a customer) from two months to 90 days.

Additionally, the new proposed rules will improve transparency in the banks’ decision-making process by requiring the banks to, in the right circumstances, give more reasons for their de-banking decisions.

However, we also explained how we did not think that these rules went far enough:

De-Banking Latest – Government introduces “New Rules” to protect against de-banking: why we still believe the new rules don’t go far enough

What does all this mean?

Until now, the landscape for both de-banking and crypto regulation has been uncertain.

However, the combination of new rules should hopefully lead to more certainty and, as such, less incidents of erroneous de-banking decisions.

What can I do to try and challenge a wrong decision to close my personal and/or bank account(s)

In the meantime, we are increasingly being approached by individuals who have been “de-banked” in circumstances where they feel that they have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other legal and applicable rules and regulations.

We have previously written about how other issues individuals may face, including account closures, are not limited to political figures in the UK, and affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year.  These cases have exposed the difficult balance many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must strike to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.

To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson’s financial crime, investigations and regulatory team have previously written blogs titled:

“Why has my bank account been closed?”

“Why has my business bank account been closed?”

“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”

“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”

“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking to not go far enough”.

“Am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?”

“How to challenge crypto-related bank account closures”

What can I do to try and challenge a wrongly imposed CIFAS marker

We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that a financial institution has wrongly imposed a CIFAS marker in their name.

If you have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable legal rules and regulations, then you should have a good basis to challenge the bank’s decision to implement any CIFAS markers.

A strong challenge will often involve demonstrating through evidence that you have not breached the bank’s Terms and Conditions or any rules and regulations, and that all transactions were at all times carried out in full compliance will all applicable laws and regulations.

In a previous blog, we examined what a CIFAS marker is and how to try and get it removed, as well as what you can do if a CIFAS marker has been wrongly imposed.

We have also recently examined Challenging a crypto-related CIFAS Marker: what you can do.

NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES

Adverse information on compliance databases

We also being increasingly approached by individuals who feel that incorrect and/or inaccurate data about them stored in compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions and are facing subsequent issues, such as bank account closures and difficulties in opening a bank account.

We have also written a series of blogs on a basic overview of the main functions of compliance databases like World-Check and how you can correct information about yourself on such databases?

HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST

Gherson’s regulatory, white-collar and investigations team are highly experienced in providing assistance on what you can do if your bank freezes or closes your account.  This includes assisting you in submitting a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information banks and other financial institutions may be holding on you and their decision making, and then analysing the response and assisting with any appropriate challenge.

If you have any questions arising from this blog, please do not hesitate to contact us for advice; send us an email at enquiries@gherson.co.uk or, alternatively, follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, or LinkedIn to stay up to date with the latest developments.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice.  Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position.  Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog.  For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson.  Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2025