De-Banking update – Gherson White Collar Crime Team cause bank to reverse wrongful decision to de-bank client

An individual approached Gherson Solicitors LLP after being informed – completely out of the blue – that their bank was going to close their account and de-bank them. The bank provided absolutely no reason for this drastic and consequential decision.

On the day of engagement, Gherson’s White Collar Crime Team immediately wrote to the bank in question. The bank responded the following day, admitting that they had made errors and would be re-opening the account. The client’s access to their account was restored almost immediately thereafter.

This case demonstrates the fact that banks continue to make wrongful de-banking decisions, which can have devastating consequences for the individuals or businesses affected.

Charting the de-banking landscape

Throughout 2025, we have been charting the changing de-banking landscape in the UK.

During this time, we have been approached by numerous individuals who have had their personal and/or business bank account(s) closed, often in circumstances when they are adamant there had been no breach of any of the bank’s Terms and Conditions or any other applicable laws and regulations.

In many cases, the decision to close the bank account(s) is taken wrongfully. This unfair situation can have a hugely detrimental effect on individuals and businesses due to the wide-ranging, complex and adverse consequences that follow.

I have been de-banked – am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?

In an April 2025 article, we explored the fundamental question of whether individuals in the UK are legally entitled to a bank account – specifically a Basic Bank Account (BBA). We examined the legal and regulatory framework that governs access to these services and analysed how the phenomenon of ‘de-risking’ may adversely affect innocent customers nationwide.

What are the new rules announced by the Labour Government aimed at preventing potential de-banking situations?

In a May 2025 article, we examined the new rules proposed by the Labour Government.

Broadly, the proposed new rules will extend the notice period a bank must give to close a customer’s account (i.e. de-bank a customer) from the current two months to 90 days.

Additionally, the new rules will increase transparency by requiring banks, in certain circumstances, to give clearer reasons for their decisions to de-bank a customer.

The proposals are in line with the changes we highlighted in our March 2024 article on this topic: What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?

When will the new de-banking rules come into effect?

In June 2025, we looked at the timeline for these changes and confirmed that the new rules should come into effect from April 2026, subject to Parliamentary approval.

However, as we have previously explained, although the new rules will go further in addressing some of the inequities in certain de-banking decisions, the whole approach to providing adequate access to a bank account and banking facilities needs to be radically reconsidered, making it akin to a fundamental right rather than something that can be offered (and taken away) at the whim of the banks.

Has the US-style wave of crypto “de-banking” reached the UK?

In July 2025, we discussed a January 2025 Forbes article entitled “No Country For Young Fintechs: the U.K.’s Debanking of Crypto Blockchain And Web 3”. The article reported on the results of a survey which found that 50 percent of the UK’s fintech and crypto firms have faced rejections when trying to open a bank account.

This situation begs the question: has this become the new reality? And if so, is there any light at the end of the tunnel?

As we have noted, the combination of potential new UK regulations for cryptoassets and stricter rules aimed at preventing de-banking should reduce the incidents of unfair account closures.

While the previous landscape for both de-banking and crypto regulation has been uncertain, the introduction of these new rules should provide greater clarity and hopefully result in fewer wrongful de-banking decisions.

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

We are increasingly approached by individuals who have been “de-banked” despite being adamant 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 may affect 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 do not go far enough”.
• “Am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?”
• “How to challenge crypto-related bank account closures”
• “De-banking and crypto – will the landscape be positively changed by the introduction of new rules for both?”

What can I do to try and challenge a wrongfully-imposed CIFAS marker?

We are also being approached by individuals who feel that a financial institution has wrongfully 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 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 with the law.

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 wrongfully imposed.

We also recently wrote a blog entitled: Challenging a crypto-related CIFAS Marker: what you can do.

NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES

Adverse information on compliance databases

We are often 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 various issues as a result, such as bank account closures or difficulties in opening a bank account.

We have also written a series of blogs on 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 advising 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 gain an insight into their decision-making, with a view to then analysing the response and assisting you 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 X, Facebook or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

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