Recent news from the Czech Republic indicates that UniCredit Bank and Creditas have begun closing the accounts of Russian and Belarusian nationals. The information comes from a Czech news portal and its reporting arm, e15.cz, which compiled the details as they emerged. In several cases, customers who held valid visas found their accounts shut down with little or no advance notice. The banks themselves have framed the situation as a challenge tied to the documentation of account holders rather than a targeted policy against particular nationalities.
Observers noted that the closures were abrupt, affecting a range of clients who apparently had satisfying documentation. The reported pattern shows accounts being closed without a formal explanation from the banks, leaving some customers unsure about the precise grounds for action. Financial institutions cited documentation problems when asked to comment, suggesting that missing or inconsistent records could be the underlying reason for the account terminations rather than arbitrary decisions tied to national origin.
Earlier disclosures indicated that Liberty Bank in Georgia had begun terminating Russian accounts as well, a development captured on the Banksta Telegram channel. This development marked at least the second instance of a Georgian bank restricting access for Russian citizens, following an earlier move by the Bank of Georgia. Such actions have drawn attention across the financial sector and among those monitoring cross-border banking trends in the region.
In the reported cases, the banks stated that an account holder’s closure was part of a broader review of client documentation. There was a notable emphasis on the absence of a stated reason for the closure in several instances. While banks often reference internal compliance checks, customers described the process as opaque, with little to no formal communication detailing what failed to meet requirements or what steps could be taken, if any, to rectify the situation.
The report also highlighted that among the affected accounts there were some opened for modest balances that did not engage in cryptocurrency activities. This detail underscores that the closures did not appear to be tied to a single type of transaction or use case, but rather to a broader compliance-related evaluation. The evolving situation has prompted discussions about the consistency of documentation requirements across different institutions and the potential impact on everyday banking for individuals who simply maintain a small, routine amount in their accounts.