Credit: Investopedia
Debanking 的定義
Debanking 被翻譯為去銀行化、被終止銀行服務、被銀行踢走、被關閉賬戶。是指銀行或金融機構在未有充份理由、也不作事前通知以及沒有預警的情況下，強制關閉個人或企業客戶的賬戶，將其排除在主流金融系統之外。銀行通常不作解釋，客戶也沒有申訴的管道。
常見的原因：銀行為了符合合規 (Compliance) 要求，降低洗黑錢 (money laundering) 風險，保護銀行的聲譽，選擇性地避開某些高風險的行業或個人。高風險行業包括：加密貨幣、軍火買賣、大麻或毒品、色情行業、人口販運、賭博、詐騙、娛樂。高風險人物包括：政治敏感人物 (Politically Exposed Person, PEP) 或激進的政治或宗教團體，或某個種族的組織。
在英語世界，銀行業常被批評歧視個別種族或族群。例如：穆斯林社群在 2001 年的 911 事件之後被當作恐怖分子，外資銀行為了降低洗黑錢或恐怖分子融資風險，把穆斯林社群的賬户關閉。專寫金融罪案的Oliver Bullough 這樣說：Instead of managing
risk, banks seek to eliminate it by withdrawing altogether from customers or
sectors perceived as problematic. 廣東話的說法：「一竹竿打一船人。」
背後的考量
銀行在什麼情況之下關閉客戶的賬户，背後牽涉許多複雜的考量。在戰雲密佈的日子，金融體系可以是武器，誰人有權力決定誰人得到銀行服務（即是：參與實體經濟活動的權利），並非商業決定那麼簡單。銀行關閉客戶賬户（Debanking）通常會以商業理由做包裝（例如：戶口結餘低於最低要求），或拒絕解釋，或講門面說話掩飾（例如：銀行只是按照客戶章程辦事，我們有權關閉賬户無需解釋）。
背後就算牽涉政治考慮，銀行也不會公開講，原因是避免被捲入政治漩渦。銀行業因為金錢而被捲入政治，是常見的事情，也是高層最不想面對的情況。聽起來很矛盾，却是事實，在金融史上很常見（例如：承擔政治任務的四大國有銀行即是建農工中，多次被俄羅斯客戶連累而被捲入洗黑錢醜聞的德意志銀行）。
令銀行業的經營更加困難
英語世界的左翼傳媒人指出：Debanking（關閉賬户）不只是合規 (Compliance) 問題，更多的是銀行在法律的灰色地帶中「清除」特定實體（個人或團體），牽涉言論自由以及種族或宗教歧視。英語世界的政府例如正在研究如何保障銀行客戶的言論自由以及避免種族或宗教歧視，其中一個研究中的方案是把 Debanking 和銀行的牌照掛鉤，即是經常關閉客戶賬戶可能會令銀行失去經營牌照，而比較輕微的後果是被監管機構啟動調查，令銀行業的經營更加困難。英語世界的說法：Adding another level of complexity.
在香港，銀行關閉客戶的戶口，可以是因為客戶被某國（美國或中國）列入制裁名單（提示：林鄭月娥），又或者是政治敏感人物 (Politically Exposed Person, PEP)（提示：陳智思），也可以是金融監管機構跟隨國家政策要求銀行清查新舊資金（即是：自某個日期開始開立的賬戶要加強審查客戶背景），背後牽涉的因素很多也很複雜，令在港營運的外資銀行左右為難，也令到合規 (Compliance) 成本增加，詳情請參考《囚錢 (Part 2)》（2026 年 6 月 1 日）。
預告：下一篇，寫美國總統特朗普（川普）被銀行關閉戶口的經歷，以及他的回應之道。
Debanking
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/%E8%A9%9E%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AA%9E/debanking
The act by a bank of closing someone's account because they are regarded
as a risk legally, financially, or to the bank's reputation:
- The government promised tougher rules on debanking to protect customers' freedom of speech.
- Unfortunately, the practice of de-banking without explanation or the possibility of appeal continues.
Wikipedia - Debanking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debanking
Excerpt: Debanking (sometimes spelled de-banking, and also known within the banking industry as de-risking) is the closure of people's or organizations' bank accounts by banks that perceive the account holders to pose a financial, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk to the bank.
Examples of this include the enforcement of anti-corruption and anti–money laundering laws, anti-terrorism efforts, and the closing of bank accounts of sex workers or people violating immigration laws or considered to be politically exposed.
Debanking has been criticized for limited
legal clarity and financial exclusion. It can have
severe consequences for individuals, as it cuts them off from various
activities within society.
Investopedia
Closed Accounts: Definitions and Impact for
Individuals & Institutions
By Daniel Liberto
January 08, 2026
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/closed-account.asp
Definition
A closed account is one that has been deactivated or terminated, preventing further financial transactions.
Key Points:
- A closed account ends activity in a financial account, halting all credits and debits.
- Account closures can occur at customer or custodian discretion.
- Closing a credit card might temporarily harm your credit score.
- In accounting, closing an account resets income statement accounts to zero for the new fiscal year.
- "Closed to new accounts" is a different term and refers to only allowing current investors to join a fund.
Why banks close accounts without notice
Risk Explained
Anna Stylianou
(11:20 minutes)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_v80Aolo3cI
（推介原因：Anna Stylianou 是金融罪案專家，熟悉反洗錢法規。她是生於塞浦路斯的希臘裔，歐洲口音，有英文字幕。這是她的 YouTube 頻道。）
去銀行化：我的看法
Gate Learn (2024-12-31)
https://www.gate.com/zh-tw/learn/articles/debanking-my-take/5355
節錄：銀行業長期以來被視為中立的公共服務，但如今卻成為文化、政治和經濟衝突的戰場。我們必須思考一個問題：當金融訪問被武器化時，誰有權決定誰能參與現代經濟？
在最近的《喬·羅根經驗》節目中，馬克·安德森強調了一個影響金融領域的令人擔憂的趨勢：去銀行化
(Debanking)。在監管機構和倡導團體的壓力下，金融機構越來越多地拒絕向個人、組織乃至整個行業提供銀行服務。我認為，有關去銀行化的一些關鍵點在討論中被忽略了，具體如下：
- 統一對去銀行化的定義
- 去銀行化是事實
- 為什麼這件事值得關注？
- 去銀行化的公眾關注度上升
- 銀行業是一種權利嗎？
- 合法的業務就是合法的業務
- Zero Hash：監管過度干預的案例分析
- 金融中立性的風險
（推介原因：中文評論文章，來自台灣媒體。）
Lexis Nexis
PEP: Politically Exposed Persons
https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-hk/glossary/pep-politically-exposed-persons
Excerpt: If you're a business, it's important to be aware of politically exposed persons (PEPs) and the risks they pose. PEPs are individuals who have been entrusted with a prominent public function, such as politicians, government officials, and judiciary members. Because they often have access to sensitive information or hold powerful positions, they can be targets for bribery or extortion. Protecting your business from dealings with a politically exposed person is essential for mitigating risk. Here's what you need to know.
（推介原因：PEP 的定義。）
Foreign banks refuse accounts of senior Hong Kong officials
Government adviser says ‘politically exposed’ individuals drawing increased scrutiny
Financial Times
Primrose Riordan and Nicolle Liu in Hong Kong
Jul 28 2020
https://www.ft.com/content/4e8ad550-0b99-4634-aa93-01ac1a0eb5f2
Key Points:
- Bernard Chan（陳智思）, convener of the Executive Council, the de facto cabinet that advises Carrie Lam, Hong Kong’s chief executive, said a US bank recently informed him it was closing his account and refunding his money. He declined to name the bank but said other senior officials were facing a similar issue.
- “I have a better chance today to go to a local bank to open an account. If I go to a US bank, they don’t want anything to do with a politically exposed person . . . even HSBC won’t want anything to do with me,” he told the Financial Times.
- Mr Chan’s comments follow growing acrimony between the US and China after Beijing imposed a national security law on Hong Kong that punishes crimes such as subversion with up to life imprisonment.
- The FT reported this month that US and European banks in Hong Kong have conducted emergency audits of their clients to identify Chinese and Hong Kong officials and corporates that could face US sanctions.
- Mr Chan, who is also president of insurance company Asia Financial, said that while his account with the US bank was closed “recently”, just before the national security law was announced, the problem was becoming more common.
- Banks have long had strict policies to deal with politically exposed clients but the US law would make them even “more cautious” in their dealings with local officials, Mr Chan said.
- “They sent me the letter and sent me back the money, saying thank you very much, we don’t want to do business, simple as that,” he said. “I am so sure it’s not just me, I even talked to . . . government civil servants, [banks] don’t want some of them, too.”
- Global banks and funds operating in Hong Kong have been pressing regulators for clarity on whether closing an official’s bank account to comply with US sanctions would constitute a violation of the security law.
- A person familiar with the matter said Citibank was not the US institution that closed Mr Chan's account.
FATF Guidance: Politically Exposed Persons (Recommendations 12 and
22)
https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/publications/Fatfrecommendations/Peps-r12-r22.html
Excerpt: A politically exposed person (PEP) is an individual who is or has been entrusted with a prominent function. Many PEPs hold positions that can be abused for the purpose of laundering illicit funds or other predicate offences such as corruption or bribery. Because of the risks associated with PEPs, the FATF Recommendations require the application of additional AML/CFT measures to business relationships with PEPs. These requirements are preventive (not criminal) in nature, and should not be interpreted as meaning that all PEPs are involved in criminal activity.
The FATF has developed guidance which will assist in the effective implementation of these additional measures for foreign, domestic and international organisation PEPs, their family members and close associates, as set out in Recommendations 12 and 22.
Key to the effective implementation of Recommendation 12 is the effective implementation of customer due diligence requirements: for financial institutions to know who their customers are. External sources of information for determining PEPs exist, such as commercial and other databases, and the paper provides some guidance on the use of these, and other, external sources of information. However, these databases are not sufficient to comply with the PEPs requirements, nor does FATF require the use of such databases.
The annex to the guidance sets out a collection of red flags and indicators for suspicion that can be used to assist in the detection of misuse of the financial systems by PEPs during a customer relationship. Examples of such red flags are the use of corporate vehicles to obscure ownership by PEPs, information being provided by the PEP being inconsistent with other publicly available information (such as asset declarations and published official salaries), or doing business with PEPs that are connected to higher risk countries (such as those for which FATF issues public statements) or high risk industries or sectors.
（推介原因：FATF 是制定反洗錢標準的國際組織。）
HKMA
Guidance on risk-based AML/CFT controls for politically exposed persons
Enclosure: Smart tips on the treatment of politically exposed persons
Issue Date: 21 Nov 2025
https://brdr.hkma.gov.hk/eng/doc-ldg/docId/20251120-6-EN
香港金融管理局：
有關政治人物的風險為本反洗錢管控措施的指引 (暫時只備英文版本）暫時
21 Nov 2025
https://brdr.hkma.gov.hk/chi/doc-ldg/docId/getPdf/20251118-4-TC/20251118-4-TC.pdf
相關的文章：
囚錢
(Part 2)
2026 年 6 月 13 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2026/06/part-2.html
節錄：《中華人民共和國反外國制裁法》實施之後，在香港經營的外資金融機構如果服從美國的指令，對中國的國民或企業或金融機構實施制裁（例如：關閉賬戶），中國可以動用《反外國制裁法》對該機構採取反制措施，具體做法可以是不發簽証、不准入境、注銷簽証或驅逐出境，也可以是查封、扣押或凍結資產。如果《反外國制裁法》在香港落實執行，會令到在港經營的外資銀行左右為難。不服從美國的指令，會被排除於美國的金融體系（提示：SWIFT）之外，做不到生意。服從美國的指令？會招致中國的報復。怎麼辦？撤出香港？
囚錢 (Part 1)
2026 年 6 月 5 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2026/06/part-1.html
節錄：三管齊下（懲罰證券商+銀行開戶難度增加+發布《國務院關於對外投資的規定》）之後，部份國產的 HNWI (High Net Worth Individuals) 也許會放棄香港。如果你知道在香港的證券商或銀行（中資或港資或外資）的賬户有可能在沒有預警的情況下突然被凍結或關閉，原因是香港的金融監管機構要配合國家政策，你會怎麼做？轉投新加坡、杜拜或瑞士，對不對？
Source of Funds (SOF) vs Source of Wealth
(SOW)
2026 年 6 月 19 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2026/06/source-of-fund-sof-vs-source-of-wealth.html
節錄：Source of Funds (SOF) 和 Source of Wealth (SOW) 是銀行業的反洗錢 (Anti-Money Laundering, AML) 術語，從不同的角度評估客戶的風險水平，協助銀行判斷是否應該接納那位客戶（開設賬戶），是否應該終止某一筆交易，是否應該終止關係（關閉賬户），是否要向金融監管機構提交可疑交易報告 (Suspicious Activity Report, SAR) 以及是否要採取其他必要的跟進措施。所問的問題，屬於不同的層次：
Deutsche Bank in troubles, again
2026 年 2 月 8 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2026/02/deutsche-bank-in-troubles-again.html
節錄：今時今日，外資銀行向俄羅斯或中國的客戶（個人或企業）提供服務，還要承擔被美國制裁的風險。如果客戶（個人或企業）已經在美國的制裁名單之內，就會得罪美國政府，後患無窮。來自俄羅斯或中國的客戶想規避制裁，常見做法是透過白手套（個人或企業）跟外資打交道。最新玩法叫 Singapore washing，即是由新加坡的個人或企業扮演中間人。
德意志＋鐮刀幫＋美國總統
2020
年 7 月 23 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2020/07/blog-post_23.html
節錄：德銀也跟匯豐一樣，因為（九十年代）進軍中國和美國而被捲入政治漩渦。這間銀行所走過的路，讓你明白金錢和權力之間的複雜關係，以及金錢在國際政治中所扮演的角色。跟匯豐一樣，德銀於九十年代進軍美國市場，曾經借錢給一個做地產生意的美國佬，日後美國佬在 2016 年的總統大選中勝出。對，他叫 Donald Trump（中譯：特朗普、川普）。若干年後，一間俄國國營銀行成為部份貸款的 Underwriter，消息來源這樣說：
英倫黑錢
2022 年 3 月 1 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2022/03/blog-post.html
節錄：英國傳媒的看法：中國人很可能繼俄羅斯人之後，利用英國的金融中心地位洗黑錢。英國的政府部門已經準備收緊移民政策及加強相關的反洗黑錢法規。今日的西方世界視俄羅斯和中國為敵人，有這種想法，不難理解（提示：英國和美國因應俄羅斯入侵烏克蘭，準備在金融層面對俄羅斯實施制裁）。如果屬實，那些來自俄羅斯和中國的黑錢，稍後是否又要轉移到另一個地方（傳統的避稅天堂還是網上的虛擬世界）？
FATF 的灰名單和黑名單
2026 年 1 月 6 日
https://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2026/01/fatf.html
節錄：粵語水為財，地下水等於原本在地下金融系統流通的黑錢（犯罪收入），而剛過去的 2025 年是大量中國黑錢湧上地面的一年（提示：錢志敏+陳志+蘇炳海）。數量之多，肉眼可見，路人皆知。地下金融系統出事，令地上的合法金融系統受影響，外國勢力有理由說三道四，採取懲罰性措施，影響貿易和投資。過去一年，主流傳媒找到不少證據，證明跨國犯罪集團利用香港（的商業房地產或高級住宅或上市公司或金融機構）洗黑錢。於是有網上的財經評論員預言：香港會被 FATF 列入灰名單 (Grey list)。
文章
沒有留言:
發佈留言