Judge orders ING to keep Gazprom account open
The judge says ING has insufficient grounds to close Gazprom’s last account.
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.
ING may not close Gazprom International Projects’ last bank account, the judge has ruled. The case touches on the tension between sanctions policy, bank compliance and companies’ interest in retaining access to the payments system.
ING had informed Gazprom International Projects that the banking relationship would be terminated. The Russian state-owned company then took the matter to court, saying it could not find an alternative to the account. The judge has prohibited ING from closing the last account.
According to the public explanation of the case, no indications of dubious transactions were found and Gazprom is not on the relevant sanctions list. That does not mean that all transactions by the group are free from restrictions. The ruling concerns this banking relationship and does not constitute a general exemption from sanctions.
For banks, ending customer relationships is part of their policy against money laundering, sanctions evasion and other financial risks. Banks can therefore sometimes refuse customers or end relationships, but a court may intervene if the justification is insufficient or if this effectively leaves a company without access to the payments system.
The case is unusual because, according to reports, ING is the only European bank that still has Gazprom as a customer. This gives a dispute over a single corporate account broader significance for how European banks deal with companies from countries subject to heavy economic sanctions.
The ruling does not oblige ING to keep Gazprom as a customer indefinitely. The bank may take measures again if circumstances change or new risks can be demonstrated. For now, the main point is that sanctions policy and banking policy are not automatically the same: a bank may have commercial or compliance reasons for ending a relationship, while the court requires a concrete and sufficiently substantiated basis for doing so.
It remains unclear exactly what grounds ING put forward and whether the bank is considering an appeal. The ruling says nothing about the lawfulness of Russian policy or about the political desirability of doing business with Gazprom.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- The judge prohibited ING from closing Gazprom International Projects’ last bank account.
- According to the available reports, Gazprom is not on the sanctions list.
- The case concerns access to a bank account, not a general exemption from sanctions.
Left
Arguments Banks should not extend economic exclusion on their own initiative beyond what laws and regulations require. Large or controversial companies are also entitled to access basic infrastructure if they comply with the rules.
Values Equality before the law, legal protection and oversight of the exercise of private power.
Consequences A judicial limit can prevent companies from disappearing from the payments system without a clear legal basis, but it may also make banks more cautious in high-risk cases.
Centre
Arguments Sanctions must be complied with, while banks must assess risks carefully. Individual judicial review is appropriate when a banking relationship is terminated and a company has no realistic alternative.
Values Legal certainty, proportionality and institutional oversight.
Consequences The account will remain open for now. Whether ING can act again in response to new facts or a changed sanctions status requires a separate legal assessment.
Right
Arguments Banks must retain room to refuse customers presenting high geopolitical and reputational risks. The fact that something is not explicitly prohibited does not mean that a private bank must continue the relationship.
Values National security, risk management and freedom of enterprise.
Consequences Broad judicial review can make compliance more costly and slower, and discourage banks from actively limiting international risks.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · 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 substance of the ruling and the sanctions status can be found in two public sources. The text explicitly states which legal details could not be verified.
Editor's note
The outcome and the limited sanctions context were confirmed by two public sources. The full judicial reasoning and any appeal proceedings were not publicly available.Sources
- Waarom staat Russisch staatsbedrijf Gazprom niet op de sanctielijst? — NPO Radio 1 / EenVandaag
- Суд запретил ING закрывать последний счет компании Газпрома — Prime