De-risking practices in the Bulgarian banking market: legal risks and remedies for clients

Bulgarian companies in sectors such as fintech, crypto or gambling are increasingly finding their bank accounts restricted or closed. Known as “de-risking”, this practice raises serious legal questions. This article outlines the key risks, the legal framework and the remedies available to affected businesses.

In recent years, an increasing number of companies in certain sectors in Bulgaria have faced restricted access to bank accounts. Banks typically justify such measures by citing heightened compliance and anti-money laundering (AML) obligations, often reflecting stricter demands from their correspondent banks. In many cases, however, this approach appears unbalanced and raises legal concerns.

Typical practice

The most common scenario is a bank unilaterally terminating the framework agreement for payment services, sometimes with little notice. Such termination is usually based on broadly worded clauses in the bank’s general terms and conditions referring to a “breach of obligations.”

Legal framework

Under Bulgarian law, banks may terminate a payment services agreement with shorter notice than the statutory two-month period if the client has breached contractual or statutory obligations. A “breach” may be alleged on contractual grounds or under AML legislation, which in some cases obliges banks to terminate relationships where customer due diligence cannot be completed.

Possible remedies

Clients facing account closure may consider:

• collecting evidence – ideally written proof that no breach has occurred (e.g. demonstrating that required documents were provided), together with correspondence with the bank;
• challenging termination – on contractual and legal grounds, with reference to case law;
• filing a complaint with the Payment Disputes Conciliation Commission – a free, out-of-court procedure available not only to consumers but also to legal entities, typically resolved within about two months;
• approaching the Bulgarian National Bank (BNB) – which may impose supervisory measures or financial sanctions if a breach of the Payment Services and Payment Systems Act is established;
• raising AML concerns with BNB – as the BNB also supervises AML compliance and may intervene against unjustified “de-risking”; or
• seeking judicial protection – by filing a damages claim against the bank for pecuniary and/or non-pecuniary loss, provided wrongful conduct, damages and causation can be proven.

Case law and regulatory position

Bulgarian case law remains limited. Courts have generally not ruled against banks, often due to difficulties in proving damages, rather than acceptance of arbitrary termination. A consistent conclusion is that termination must be based on a specific breach – whether failure to comply with AML requirements or contractual obligations – and not exercised indiscriminately (e.g. Decision No. 4946 of 30 July 2025 of the Sofia City Court, civil case No. 5473/2024).

At the EU level, the European Banking Authority (EBA) has criticised unjustified “de-risking,” stressing that it undermines effective AML/CTF risk management. However, in Bulgaria such practices have not yet been sanctioned or clearly restricted by courts or regulators.

Banks may – and in certain circumstances are required to – terminate relationships where specific AML or contractual breaches have been established. However, the legal framework does not permit termination without a substantiated basis. Businesses, in turn, may utilise available legal mechanisms to clarify their position and improve AML transparency in order to mitigate perceived risks.

Notes:

• “De-risking” is when banks decide to limit or terminate relationships with clients or whole sectors that they perceive as too risky (e.g. fintech, crypto, gambling, NGOs, cash-intensive businesses), rather than assessing each client individually.
• This note concerns corporate accounts. Basic payment accounts, to which every legally resident EU consumer is entitled, are subject to different rules. Still, there is a rise in terminated consumer accounts as well, often linked by commentators to euro adoption preparations.

Legislative references:

• Art. 63(6) of the Payment Services and Payment Systems Act
• Art. 17(2) of the Measures Against Money Laundering Act (
• Art. 175 of the Payment Services and Payment Systems Act.
• Art. 167 of the Payment Services and Payment Systems Act.
• Art. 4, para. 1, item 1 of the Measures Against Money Laundering Act.
• EBA Opinion on de-risking (EBA/Op/2022/01), available here.