A recent Israeli report says billionaire Roman Abramovich, working with the Israeli charity ZAKA, has taken legal action against Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank after it declined to accept a donation from him due to sanctions imposed on him by the European Union. The piece explains that the donor intends to give 8 million shekels, about 2.2 million dollars at current rates, to ZAKA to support its search and rescue missions. ZAKA remains active following the October 7 attack on Israel by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip.
The report notes that the bank refused the transfer because Abramovich is under EU and UK sanctions. The entrepreneur is quoted as saying that, as an Israeli citizen, he should obtain bank approval for the transaction, and that the decision runs counter to his rights as a local resident. The publication adds that Israel has not imposed sanctions on him and that he is not subject to United States sanctions.
Legal representatives for Abramovich argue that the bank is in the wrong and that its stance lacks legal grounding, according to the report. Before this matter surfaced, Abramovich was reportedly employed at an upscale restaurant in Turkey, where a server received a notably generous tip. Earlier commentary in financial circles had highlighted three top investment approaches, the report notes, framing the current dispute within a broader discussion of asset management and philanthropic funding in a global context.
Observers emphasize that the case touches on the intersection of international sanctions, national banking policies, and the rights of citizens to fund charitable causes. The bank’s position has drawn attention from legal experts who suggest that the rules governing such transfers may require closer scrutiny, especially in jurisdictions where sanctions regimes interact with domestic banking regulations. In this unfolding situation, representatives for Abramovich maintain that the donation should be permissible under Israeli law and applicable international rules, and they call for a resolution that allows charitable giving to proceed without unnecessary hindrance. The case continues to generate discussion about how financial institutions balance compliance with sanctions and the expectations of clients who wish to support humanitarian work in times of crisis. Marked sources indicate ongoing coverage and expert commentary on the legal and policy implications of this transfer request. Citation notes accompany the evolving analysis to help readers understand the developments as they occur.