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...

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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.

>What would happen if they skip/delay the reporting part?

They wouldn't. Typically banks take the approach of filing as many reports as they can. If you're overeager in filing the reports, nobody will look at them and you will not be blamed for not filing those reports.

Google for something along the lines of "suspicious activity report flooded" and you'll find endless stories demonstrating how ineffective these systems are.

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 thing to do. In the EU, banks only have a duty to serve customers under the "basic payment account" scheme.

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.

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?

Not even close. For the most part, they're bound by EU regulations.

>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?

Banks are only obligated to give a reason for closing basic PAD accounts. No such obligation exists for normal bank accounts.

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

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