ABN AMRO under pressure over ICC sanctions
US measures against the International Criminal Court could complicate financial services to the court in The Hague, but the precise consequences for ABN AMRO have yet to be established.
Listen to this article
There is no audio version yet. Request one and an AI voice will read the article aloud.
Read by an AI voice.
ABN AMRO could find itself in a difficult position because of new US sanctions against the International Criminal Court. Public sources confirm that the bank holds the court’s account, but not that payments have already been blocked or that the bank must end its services.
The United States imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court as an institution on 9 October. According to the court, it is an unprecedented step, following earlier US sanctions against individual judges and prosecutors. Washington wants to prohibit transactions with the court, saying it intends in this way to restrict its operations.
The measures will not take full effect immediately. The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs said service providers can continue to serve the court for the time being and that there will be six months for consultations. The sanctions have therefore been announced, but what they will mean in practice for European companies is still unclear.
According to Marieke de Hoon, a professor of international criminal law, the ICC’s bank account is held with ABN AMRO. She warned on Nieuwsuur that this could leave the bank facing a dilemma: continuing to provide services to the court could have consequences in the United States, while stopping could affect the financial continuity of an international court.
For now, ABN AMRO has made no public statement explaining how it assesses the sanctions legally or what measures it is preparing. Nor has it been established publicly whether US regulators have directly warned the Dutch bank about secondary sanctions.
The Dutch cabinet has condemned the US move and said it would continue to stand behind the court. The Netherlands is the ICC’s host country and a party to the Rome Statute. Foreign Minister Tom Berendsen wrote that the Netherlands wants, together with other countries, to prevent the sanctions from making it impossible for the court to function properly.
The issue therefore affects more than one bank account. If banks, software companies or other service providers withdraw as a precaution, this could complicate the court’s day-to-day operations. At the same time, it is still unclear what European countermeasures might be possible and how the European blocking statute would be applied in this specific case. Until those questions have been answered, ‘completely cornered’ is too categorical a conclusion.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The United States has imposed sanctions on the International Criminal Court.
- The ICC carries out its work on the basis of the Rome Statute.
- According to a public Dutch source, the court’s bank account is held with ABN AMRO.
- The Dutch government says it will continue to support the court.
Left
Arguments According to this approach, banks and companies must prevent US sanctions from effectively determining the international legal order. European institutions should actively protect the ICC and organise financial alternatives.
Values International equality before the law, human rights and judicial independence.
Consequences A firm European response could protect the court’s financial continuity, but could also increase tensions with the United States and the risk of retaliatory measures.
Centre
Arguments The institutional approach seeks legal clarity and common European agreements before banks are forced to choose. Diplomacy and a coordinated alternative payment channel take priority.
Values Legal certainty, practicability and the protection of relations between allies.
Consequences A temporary solution could keep the court afloat, but uncertainty over secondary sanctions will remain as long as Washington and Brussels do not clarify their rules.
Right
Arguments From this perspective, the US government has the right to protect its citizens and companies from a court it does not recognise. European banks must manage their risks and should not be forced to take on geopolitical conflicts.
Values National sovereignty, protection of companies and restraint towards international institutions.
Consequences A cautious response from banks limits immediate financial risks, but could make the ICC more dependent on non-Western service providers and reduce its reach.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved with corrections · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The article’s central point has been confirmed: the US has sanctioned the ICC, and according to a public Dutch source the ICC’s account is held by ABN AMRO. The precise legal and operational consequences for the bank remain unconfirmed.
- confirmed The United States imposed sanctions on the ICC as an institution on 9 October 2026. — Confirmed by the ICC and the Dutch government. source
- confirmed The sanctions will not take full effect immediately and there is a six-month period for consultations. — Mentioned in the statement by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. source
- confirmed The ICC’s bank account is held with ABN AMRO. — Mentioned by Professor Marieke de Hoon on Nieuwsuur; no current statement from the bank itself was found. source
- uncertain ABN AMRO has already blocked ICC payments. — No public confirmation was found; the text does not claim this. source
- confirmed The Netherlands is the host country and a party to the Rome Statute. — The Dutch government statement confirms both roles. source
1 correction(s) applied
- Was: ABN Amro is completely cornered by US sanctions against the International Criminal CourtNow: ABN AMRO under pressure over ICC sanctions (Public sources confirm risks and a possible dilemma, but no complete blockade or definitive decision by the bank.)
Editor's note
The sanctions and ABN AMRO’s involvement are described in public sources. An up-to-date statement from ABN AMRO or a formal decision on blocking is missing; therefore, the status is insufficient_sources and the original certainty has been toned down.Sources
- Amerikaanse sancties ‘mokerslag’ voor Internationaal Strafhof, wat doet Nederland? — NOS Nieuwsuur
- The ICC strongly rejects US sanctions against the institution — International Criminal Court
- Statement van minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Tom Berendsen over de aangekondigde sancties tegen het ICC — Rijksoverheid
More on this in Dutch media
- De Telegraaf — „abn amro”
- Trouw — „abn amro”
- RTL Nieuws — „abn amro”