Opinion
Banks should not become shadow regulators
Europe decided through MiCA who may offer crypto services. In practice a bank often decides instead, without reasoning and without appeal. That is supervision without a mandate.
This is an opinion piece. It reflects the author's view and is not investment advice.
A second gate nobody created
A licensed firm passes a strict process: capital requirements, custody rules, governance, complaints procedures. It then still faces a bank that decides on its own authority whether an account exists at all.
That second gate has no legal criteria, no deadlines and no appeal. Those refused rarely learn why. For the customer behind that firm, the effect equals a ban.
Two filters, one outcome
| Supervisor | Bank | |
|---|---|---|
| Criteria | Public in the regulation | Internal policy |
| Reasoning | Mandatory | Rarely given |
| Deadline | Legally bounded | Open-ended |
| Appeal | Objection and court | Complaint to the same party |
The risk is real, the response is not proportionate
Nobody disputes that banks must manage money laundering risk. The problem is the flight to categorical exclusion: rejecting a whole sector is administratively cheaper than judging file by file.
That behaviour pushes activity towards less transparent channels. Denied a licensed route, users do not disappear, they become invisible. That is the opposite of what the rules intend.
What blanket refusal produces
Editorial estimate of effects, offered as a framework rather than a measurement.
- Less visibility on money flows70%
Activity moves out of sight
- Less competition between providers55%
- Extra cost for the end customer45%
- Fraud actually prevented20%
What should happen instead
A bank refusing a licensed firm should state its reasoning in writing within a fixed period, with a genuine appeal route. Not an obligation to accept everyone, but an obligation to explain.
Standardisation helps too: one set of data supplied by a licensed firm, accepted by every bank. The information already exists; it is simply requested twelve different ways.
- Reasoned refusal within a fixed period
- Independent appeal outside the bank
- Standardised file for licensed providers
- Supervision of risk policy, not only incidents
Why this reaches ordinary savers
A private user notices nothing until a transfer stalls or their platform has to switch banks. Those costs land on them, in wider spreads and slower payouts.
A market that is legal should also be reachable through banking. Until then MiCA remains half a promise.
Ofte stilte spørsmål
Must banks accept every licensed crypto firm?
No. The argument is about reasoning, deadlines and appeal, not about an obligation to accept.
Does a MiCA licence guarantee a bank account?
No. Banks run their own risk policy, separate from the supervisor's licence.
Where can a refused company go?
Usually only to the same bank's complaints desk, then an ombudsman. A dedicated appeal route is missing.
About the author
Sanne volgt de cryptomarkten, ETF-stromen en institutionele instroom in Europa. Ze schreef eerder over kapitaalmarkten en vertaalt marktdata naar begrijpelijke verhalen.