DEBATE • A bank account and BankID are no longer ordinary services. They are keys to modern society. Therefore, banks that wrongly or disproportionately close accounts, freeze funds, or make BankID unusable must also be held accountable for the consequences.
There is a concept that should be discussed much more in Sweden: de-risking.
The term is used internationally to describe when banks and financial actors limit, deny, or terminate customer relationships to reduce their own risk. This can involve anti-money laundering regulations, sanctions, internal compliance, customer due diligence, or the bank’s own risk appetite.
On paper, it may sound technical and administrative. In reality, it can shatter a person’s daily life.
READ ALSO: REPORTAGE: Michael barred from the banking system – ‘Slow state rape’
A European report from ARGA Observatory, De-risking by Banks: Account Closures, Compliance Decisions, and Access to Financial Services, describes how banks sometimes shift the risk from themselves to the customer.
The bank avoids regulatory uncertainty by closing, limiting, or denying services. The customer is left to bear the consequence.
For the bank, it is an internal decision. For the customer, it can mean the account is closed, funds are frozen, wages cannot be accessed, bills cannot be paid, and BankID no longer works. This is no small matter.
In Sweden, BankID is in practice the gateway to authorities, healthcare, schools, banks, insurance companies, tax returns, contracts, payments, and everyday life. Without BankID, a person is quickly digitally isolated. Without a bank account, one becomes economically isolated.
That is why we must stop pretending that a bank account is just another commercial service. A bank account with basic functions is today a fundamental societal function.
DON’T MISS SAMNYTT’S INTERVIEW WITH THE DEBATER:
Of course banks must combat money laundering, fraud, and financial crime. That is not the question. The question is whether banks should be allowed to use risk, due diligence, or money laundering regulations as sweeping explanations without clearly showing what is actually missing, what concrete risk exists, and why less intrusive measures are not sufficient.
There is a crucial difference between managing risk and shifting all the risk to the customer. Managing risk means the bank makes an individual assessment, asks clear questions, requests relevant documentation, follows up on the answers, and tries proportional alternatives.
Shifting risk means the bank shuts the door and lets the customer take the hit. When this happens, the bank is not sent to collections. The customer is.
READ ALSO: Ekeroth to SD: The banks are gatekeepers for who gets to participate in society – take back control
The bank does not get late fees. The customer does. The bank does not lose the ability to log into authorities. The customer does.
The bank does not lose the ability to receive wages, pay rent, or manage daily life. The customer does.
This is why de-risking is a question of legal certainty.
If banks have the power to exclude people from economic and digital infrastructure, there must also be clear requirements for responsibility, transparency, and compensation when decisions are wrong or disproportionate.
A bank that closes an account or blocks functions must be able to answer specific questions:
• What actual risk existed?
• What specific information was missing?
• Which questions did the customer have the opportunity to answer?
• Which documents did the bank consider insufficient?
• Which less intrusive measures were tried?
• Why were additional questions, limited functions or enhanced control not enough? • And if the bank was wrong: who compensates the customer?
It should be obvious that whoever causes harm through a wrongful decision must also bear the consequences. If a bank, without sufficient grounds, blocks an account, funds, or BankID and the customer therefore suffers late fees, collections, missed salaries, legal costs, or other financial harm, the bank should compensate the customer.
This is not about giving free rein to criminals. It is about protecting ordinary people’s right not to be economically destroyed by an administrative decision behind closed doors.
Sweden needs a clearer debate about the power of banks. We need clearer requirements for justification when accounts are closed. We need better protection for people who end up in economic and digital exclusion.
We need rules that mean banks cannot simply refer to internal routines or general risk, but must show a concrete basis and proportionality. And above all, we need a system where banks are held accountable when they are wrong.
Because when a bank account and BankID function as keys to society, we cannot accept these keys being taken from people without clear review, clear reasoning, and clear consequences for those who made mistakes.
Banks should manage risk. They should not shift all the risk to the customer.
Michael Fridebäck
Entrepreneur
Sources and Documentation
READ ALSO: Ekeroth: ‘Good that SD will now pursue the issue of curbing the banks’ abuse of power’