Has the US-style wave of crypto ‘de-banking’ reached the UK?

Since the beginning of the year a number of articles by respected publications have cited British businesses’ genuine concerns over a US-style wave of crypto ‘debanking’.

Back in May 2025, The Observer published an article entitled “British businesses fear US-style wave of crypto “debanking”” describing how a senior employee of a publicly-listed UK-registered crypto company was struggling to get a mortgage because his salary was paid by a crypto business, and how a British high street bank had barred all outbound payments to crypto exchanges. The article claimed that according to a survey conducted by startup and cryptoasset groups, half of UK businesses (out of 80 that responded to the survey) have reported being turned down for a business bank account or had an account closed.

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

This situation begs the question – has this indeed become a new reality, and if so, is there any light at the end of the tunnel?

Our Experience

We have been approached by individuals who have had their personal or business bank accounts closed in connection with crypto transactions. However, these individuals were adamant that neither they, nor the transactions in question, had breached of any of the bank’s Terms and Conditions or applicable laws and regulations.

In some scenarios, the bank may decide to close an account wrongfully, which can have a hugely detrimental effect on the individual or business concerned due to the wide-ranging, complex and adverse consequences which may result.

However, as we have also noted and explored in detail, 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.

What does this mean? Is there light at the end of the tunnel?

Previously, there was no clarity concerning debanking and crypto regulation. The combination of new rules should hopefully lead to more certainty and, as such, fewer occasions of wrongful de-banking decisions.

What can I do to challenge a wrongful decision to close my bank account?

We are receiving a growing number of enquiries from individuals who have been ‘de-banked’ despite always acting in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable rules and regulations.

In our previous articles we have noted how issues such as bank account closures are not limited to political figures in the UK and may 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 navigate 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 published the following articles:

• 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 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 challenge a wrongfully imposed CIFAS marker?

We are often approached by individuals claiming that a financial institution has wrongfully imposed a CIFAS marker in respect of them.

If an individual has always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable legal rules and regulations, then they should have a good basis from which to challenge the bank’s decision to place a CIFAS marker against their name.

A strong challenge will often involve demonstrating through evidence that the individual in question has not breached the bank’s Terms and Conditions and that all transactions were performed at all times in full compliance with all the applicable laws and regulations.

In a previous article we have examined what a CIFAS marker is, and how it can potentially be removed, as well as what can be done if a CIFAS marker has been imposed wrongfully. In addition, our recent article on the topic discusses ways of challenging a crypto-related CIFAS marker.

NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION RELATED CHALLENGES

Adverse information on compliance databases

We are receiving a growing number of enquiries from individuals who claim that incorrect or inaccurate data relating to them is stored on compliance databases, causing their relationship with financial institutions to suffer and resulting in issues such as bank accounts closures or difficulties with opening a bank account.

To help those who have found themselves in this difficult situation, we have written a series of articles giving a basic overview of the main functions of compliance databases such as World-Check and outlining the steps that would need to be taken to correct one’s information on such databases.

HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST

Gherson’s Regulatory, White-Collar and Investigations Team are highly experienced in providing assistance to those whose bank accounts have been frozen or closed. This includes helping individuals to submit a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information relating to them may be held by banks and other financial institutions, and to understand the institutions’ decision-making process. Having received the response from any such Data Subject Access Request, we can analyse its contents and assist 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 e-mail, or, alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, Instagram, 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