Bank account closed for a payment institution or bureau de change in Spain

The case, in five lines

What is brought

Against the bank, not against the Banco de España: a written demand for the reasoned decision required by article 9 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 (RDL 19/2018) (article 16 bis of Law 21/2011 for an electronic money institution) and a complaint to the bank's customer service department; a report to the Banco de España for breach (article 71.5 of RDL 19/2018); prior negotiation (article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025) and a civil claim for performance of the contract or for unfair competition, with pre-action interim measures if closure is imminent. A bureau de change that is not a payment institution relies on its contract and on articles 28.2 and 32.4 of RDL 19/2018.

Before which court

The decision is the bank's, not the authorities'. The Banco de España receives the reasoned decision, supervises the bank and handles complaints, and article 9 is a conduct and discipline rule whose breach can be sanctioned (article 71 of RDL 19/2018). Litigation goes to the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) for a contractual claim, or to its commercial section (sección de lo mercantil) for unfair competition. There is no recurso de alzada (administrative appeal) and no Audiencia Nacional (National High Court): the closure is not an administrative act.

Deadline

The bank must send the reasoned decision ‘immediately’ (article 9 of RDL 19/2018). A commercial closure of an open-ended contract requires a contractual provision and two months' notice (article 32.4), unless, since you are neither a consumer nor a micro-enterprise, the parties agreed to disapply that regime (article 28.2). The customer service department answers within one month as a general rule and, for complaints about payment services, within fifteen working days, or one month at most in exceptional cases and after a holding reply (article 29 bis.3 of Law 44/2002, as worded by Law 10/2025, and article 69). A request to negotiate interrupts the limitation period, which starts running afresh if there is no written reply within 30 calendar days (article 7 of Organic Law 1/2025); pre-action interim measures do not have to wait for it (article 5.3). The contractual claim is time-barred after five years (article 1964.2 of the Civil Code).

Who can bring it

The article 9 right belongs to the authorised payment institution whose account is refused or terminated, and to the electronic money institution under article 16 bis of Law 21/2011. Whether a small payment institution (exempt regime) has it is a matter of interpretation (it is treated as a payment institution, article 14.2.b of RDL 19/2018), with no express wording. A bureau de change that is not a payment institution, and an agent, do not have it: they claim under their contract. The claim is brought against the bank.

Financial risk

Without a segregated account, investment in secure, liquid, low-risk assets, or an insurance policy or guarantee in its place, there is no safeguarding (article 21 of RDL 19/2018) and, without safeguarding, the conditions of the authorisation are no longer met, which is a ground for revocation (article 18.1.d), as is interrupting the business for more than six months (article 18.1.b); for a bureau de change, more than twelve (article 9 of Royal Decree 2660/1998). If the bank closes because it could not apply customer due diligence, article 7.3 of Law 10/2010 (the anti-money laundering act) relieves it of liability save for unjust enrichment, and losing the case usually means paying the costs.

First: are you a payment institution, a small payment institution, a bureau de change or an agent?

The answer decides which weapons you have. Article 9 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 gives payment institutions a right of access to banks' payment account services ‘on an objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate basis’, broad enough to allow them to provide their services in an unhindered and efficient manner. Article 16 bis of Law 21/2011 repeats the rule for electronic money institutions. Neither provision reaches anyone who does not hold that licence.

A bureau de change that only buys, or buys and sells, banknotes under Royal Decree 2660/1998 is not a payment institution, and an agent provides services in the name of an institution, not in its own: neither has the article 9 right. The small payment institution under article 14 sits in between: the provision does not name it, but it is treated as a payment institution (article 14.2.b), and that is the argument we put forward, knowing there is no published position of the Banco de España on the point.

If your company is both a bureau de change and a payment institution, as article 4.2.b of Royal Decree 2660/1998 allows since its amendment by Royal Decree 84/2015, the right belongs to the company. But article 9 protects the access it needs to provide payment services, and the bank may try to treat separately the account into which the cash from banknote exchange is paid. That is our reading of the literal text, not an official position: which is why each account should have its purpose documented from the contract onwards. If your question is the licence itself, it is covered in our cases on authorisation of a bureau de change and on exchanging currency by bank transfer.

What article 9 requires the bank to do, and what it does not

If the bank refuses to open a payment account or unilaterally terminates the framework contract of a payment institution, it must ‘immediately’ send the Banco de España and the institution itself a duly reasoned decision. The reasons must be based on an analysis of the specific risks of that particular institution or on its failure to meet objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate criteria that the bank has published beforehand and on a general basis (article 9, second paragraph).

Spain goes further than the Directive: article 36 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366 (PSD2) only requires reasons to be given to the competent authority; here they must also reach the institution. A letter referring to a ‘risk policy for the sector’ or a ‘commercial decision’ does not comply: it neither analyses your specific risk nor identifies which published criterion you fail to meet. And article 9 is a conduct and discipline rule: its breach falls within the sanctions regime and can be reported to the Banco de España (article 71).

What article 9 does not do is oblige the bank to keep your account open. If it cannot apply customer due diligence, Law 10/2010 prevents it from continuing the relationship and relieves it of liability save for unjust enrichment (article 7.3). The tipping-off prohibition in article 24 prevents it from telling you that it has reported anything to SEPBLAC (Spain's financial intelligence unit), but it does not exempt the bank from giving reasons: that prohibition does not apply to the competent authorities, and the Banco de España receives the full decision.

Bureaux de change and agents: without article 9, the contract and proportionality

Without article 9, the fight is contractual. If the bank closes the account for commercial reasons, an open-ended framework contract may only be terminated if the contract so provides and on at least two months' notice (article 32.4 of RDL 19/2018). But with a user that is neither a consumer nor a micro-enterprise, the parties may agree to disapply that regime (article 28.2), and then your contract governs. The first thing we read is the termination clause: whether the 30 days in the letter are valid depends on it.

If the bank relies on anti-money laundering rules, it must be able to show that it could not apply customer due diligence: article 7.3 of Law 10/2010 requires it to end the relationship in that case, not to shut out an entire sector. The measures are calibrated to the customer's risk, on the basis of a prior written risk analysis that the bank must be able to show the authorities (article 7.1). A closure without a single prior request, for a customer that always provided what it was asked for, sits uneasily with that ground.

The Court of Justice of the European Union, in its judgment of 10 March 2016 (case C-235/14), answered a Spanish reference about banks that closed the accounts of a remittance payment institution. Interpreting the 2005 Anti-Money Laundering Directive, it accepted that a bank may apply due diligence to the institution and its agents and take into account the due diligence the institution applies to its own customers, but with measures adapted to the risk and without taking the place of the institution's supervisor, and it left it to the national court to verify this. The European Banking Authority warned in January 2022, and in its guidelines of 31 March 2023, against de-risking entire categories of customers without regard to each customer's individual risk profile.

What the Banco de España looks at when the bank's letter reaches it

The reasoned decision does not reach only you: the bank also sends it to the Banco de España, which supervises both the bank and your institution. That is why a closure is never neutral. From the same letter, the supervisor can see whether the bank gave reasons based on an individual analysis or on a blanket rejection of the sector, and also that an institution it authorised is about to lose its account, with all that this means for its customers' funds.

What nobody tells you: in our view, losing the safeguarding account is a significant change in the conditions on which you were authorised, and failing to inform the Banco de España of any significant change is a ground for revocation (article 18.1.d of RDL 19/2018). So is a de facto interruption of the business for more than six months (article 18.1.b). For a bureau de change, an interruption of more than twelve months allows the authorisation to be revoked (article 9 of Royal Decree 2660/1998). Reporting in time, with a plan, protects the licence; staying silent puts it at risk.

What the bank examines, and what you should put in front of it before it decides, is what SEPBLAC examined when you were authorised: the anti-money laundering manual, the annual review by an external expert that a payment institution must undergo by law (article 28 of Law 10/2010), agent selection and monitoring, with every agent registered, and the map of corridors and countries. From 28 October 2026, moreover, a small bureau de change must appoint a representative to SEPBLAC (Royal Decree 813/2026), with nine months to notify the appointment. How that system is built is covered in our case on anti-money laundering compliance for bureaux de change and remittance businesses.

The safeguarding account: without it, no licence lasts

A payment institution providing the services in letters a) to f) does not commingle its customers' funds with its own and, if it has not paid them out by the end of the business day following receipt, deposits them in a separate account with a credit institution or invests them in secure, liquid, low-risk assets (article 21.1.a of RDL 19/2018). In insolvency, users have an absolute right of separation over that account. The deposit must be designated ‘saldos de clientes de entidad de pago’ (payment institution client balances) (article 16.2 of Royal Decree 736/2019) and, according to the Banco de España's guide for applicants, the contract excludes set-off and the charging of fees.

The alternative, if no bank will take the account, is the other route in article 21: an insurance policy or comparable guarantee from an insurer or a credit institution outside your group, for the amount that would otherwise have been segregated, which must also cover funds held by your agents (article 21.1.b of RDL 19/2018; article 16.3.c of Royal Decree 736/2019). The method chosen is entered in the special register and in the framework contracts with your customers, so a change of method is notified to the Banco de España and proposed to customers at least two months in advance, like any amendment to the framework contract (article 16.1 of Royal Decree 736/2019; article 33.1 of RDL 19/2018). That is why it is prepared the day the letter arrives, not at the end of the notice period.

A small payment institution only safeguards funds if the Banco de España considers it necessary, and a bureau de change that only exchanges banknotes has no such obligation; but both need an account into which to pay their cash, and that is where the bank sees its greatest risk. If the problem arises before the licence is granted, because you cannot find a bank for the safeguarding arrangements the application requires, it is dealt with in our case on requests for information and refusals of the licence. And if the account blocked belongs to one of your customers rather than to your institution, the relevant case is the one on accounts frozen on anti-money laundering grounds.

Complain, report and sue: the order that keeps every door open

The first letter goes out the same day the bank's letter arrives: we demand by burofax (a certified letter whose contents are officially recorded) the reasoned decision required by article 9, the risk analysis on which it rests or the published criterion you allegedly fail to meet, and we offer whatever due diligence the bank wishes to apply, with the file already prepared. At the same time we complain to the bank's customer service department, which has one month to reply or, if the complaint concerns payment services, fifteen working days, and only exceptionally and after a holding reply one month at most (article 29 bis.3 of Law 44/2002, as worded by Law 10/2025, and article 69 of RDL 19/2018).

If the bank gives no reasons, or only a generic formula, we file a report with the Banco de España for breach of article 9 (article 71.5), acting as your representatives through the electronic registry, without using your digital certificate. The report puts the matter before the bank's supervisor, but it does not by itself give you back the account: that takes an agreement or a court. Nor is it an appeal against the Banco de España: the closure is decided by a private bank, which is why there is no recurso de alzada to the Minister for the Economy and no Audiencia Nacional.

Before suing the bank you must first attempt an appropriate dispute resolution method on the same subject matter, and direct negotiation between lawyers counts (article 5.1 of Organic Law 1/2025). The request interrupts the limitation period and, if there is no written reply within 30 calendar days, time starts running afresh (article 7). If closure is imminent, pre-action interim measures do not require that attempt (article 5.3): the court is asked to keep the account operating while the case is heard. The claim goes to the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia for breach of contract, or to its commercial section if the closure amounts to unfair competition, which does not require the bank to be your competitor.

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   We read the letter and the contract on day one

   We establish whether your company has the article 9 right, what notice period was agreed, whether the contract disapplied the protective regime and whether the bank relies on a specific risk, a published criterion or a commercial decision.

2. 2

   We demand the reasons and offer due diligence

   A burofax demanding the reasoned decision and the risk analysis, with the anti-money laundering file ready to hand over, and a complaint to the bank's customer service department.

3. 3

   We protect safeguarding and cash handling

   A contingency plan before the notice period expires: another credit institution approached with the file ready, or an insurance policy or guarantee from outside your group that also covers the funds held by your agents.

4. 4

   We speak to the Banco de España before it asks

   We notify the change and the plan as your representatives, through the electronic registry and without your certificate, and report the breach of article 9 if the bank gives no reasons.

5. 5

   We negotiate against a deadline

   A formal request to negotiate between lawyers that satisfies article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025, interrupts the limitation period and proposes keeping the account or an orderly exit.

6. 6

   We seek interim measures and sue

   If closure is imminent, pre-action interim measures without waiting for the negotiation; then a claim before the civil or commercial section of the Tribunal de Instancia.

The law that applies

• Art. 9 RDL 19/2018. Payment institutions have objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate access to bank accounts; if the bank refuses or terminates, it must immediately send the Banco de España and the institution a decision reasoned on its specific risks or on previously published criteria. BOE-A-2018-16036
• Art. 36 Directiva (UE) 2015/2366 (PSD2). Member States must ensure objective, non-discriminatory and proportionate access for payment institutions to bank accounts; a refusal must be reasoned to the competent authority. 32015L2366
• Art. 16 bis Ley 21/2011. The same right of access, and the same duty to give reasons to the Banco de España and to the institution, for electronic money institutions. BOE-A-2011-12909
• Arts. 21, 28.2 y 32.4 RDL 19/2018. Safeguarding of customer funds in a separate account, secure assets or insurance or a guarantee from outside the group; an open-ended contract may be terminated by the provider if the framework contract so provides and on two months' notice, a regime that may be disapplied for users that are neither consumers nor micro-enterprises. BOE-A-2018-16036
• Arts. 18 y 71 RDL 19/2018. Revocation for failing to meet the conditions of authorisation, not reporting significant changes or interrupting the business for more than six months; breaches of the law can be sanctioned and the Banco de España handles complaints. BOE-A-2018-16036
• Arts. 7 y 24 Ley 10/2010. Risk-based due diligence supported by a written analysis; where it cannot be applied, the relationship is ended without liability save for unjust enrichment; a ban on disclosing reports to SEPBLAC, which does not apply to the authorities. BOE-A-2010-6737
• Arts. 5 y 7 LO 1/2025. A civil claim requires a prior attempt at an appropriate dispute resolution method, except for pre-action interim measures; the request interrupts the limitation period, which starts running afresh if there is no written reply within 30 calendar days. BOE-A-2025-76
• Art. 16 RD 736/2019. The safeguarding account is designated ‘saldos de clientes de entidad de pago’; insurance or a guarantee must also cover funds held by agents. BOE-A-2019-18425

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions