Ahmad complained that the payment had no connection to sanctioned persons, activities or regimes and violated no sanctions law. He said the money was derived from a legal source, which happened to originate in Iran. He said the bank’s decision, and the policies on which it was based, amounted to indirect discrimination and were unfair. He also said a blanket ban on certain transactions exceeded the requirements of international sanctions law and amounted to indirect discrimination.    

Our investigation

Ahmad’s bank was not obliged to accept all incoming international payments to his account, and it reversed the payment in accordance with the terms and conditions of that account. The bank was, however, obliged to comply with international sanctions law, and it acted in accordance with that law. Banks are entitled to decide for themselves whether a payment has a connection to a sanctioned country, and they make that decision based, in part, on how much risk they are prepared to expose themselves to by accepting such a payment – not on the ethnicity or nationality of the recipient.    

Outcome

We did not uphold Ahmad’s complaint.