Rising interest rates, record insolvencies, and permanent recession — the looming economic crisis in the EU is taking shape. Brussels is responding by preparing the ground for capital controls. The regulators’ latest target: European citizens’ foreign bank accounts.
Read more Pandering to Predation
Starting January 11, 2027, trouble looms for EU citizens with foreign accounts. From that date, banks from third countries — Switzerland, the UK, the US, or Singapore — will be prohibited from offering so-called core banking services to European citizens. In essence, this covers three core functions: classic deposit-taking (checking, savings, or fixed-term accounts), lending, and the guarantee business. Banks wishing to continue offering these services to EU citizens will then be required to maintain a specifically licensed, fully supervised branch in exactly the member state where the customer resides.
Existing customers who held a foreign account as of July 11, 2026, may keep it, as long as the contractual basis is not fundamentally altered. Here lies a gray zone, an area of interpretive discretion for European authorities — one that will almost certainly be used in the future to pull these customers back inside the EU’s walls as well.
Officially, this new EU initiative is called Directive 2024/1619, better known as CRD VI — the sixth Capital Requirements Directive. It was adopted through the ordinary legislative procedure by the European Parliament and the Council, on a proposal from the European Commission. As is so often the case with new EU regulations, the process simmered quietly in the background for a long time, largely unnoticed by public awareness. It formally entered into force on July 9, 2024, though it only becomes binding for affected third-country banks from January 11, 2027. The Commission itself officially markets this regulation as mere “harmonization of market access” for third-country banks — a technocratic-sounding term that, in practice, amounts to a gatekeeping mechanism over the customer. The European Banking Authority (EBA), which published its final guidelines on the authorization of third-country branches on July 7, 2026, likewise speaks soberly of a “harmonized regulatory framework.”
The re-territorialization of bank accounts — and thus of customer deposits — intended by the European Commission fits into the larger picture of a new financial market architecture.
There has been much recent talk of a banking union, a common rulebook for institutions and credit markets, which in the end will likely serve above all to deepen the pools of capital available for sovereign financing.
The European Commission and the European Central Bank are working together with national legislators on measures to strengthen the liquidity position of the EU banking sector. This will also be necessary given continually rising interest rates — a trend that, in a worst case, will not only place heavy strain on public finances. The real economy, too, is facing rising borrowing costs, which many businesses may not survive after the long era of low rates.
Read more So Much Evil! Still Don’t Believe in the Devil?
We are witnessing the construction of an entire bundle of new rules to shore up financial institutions. Crypto regulation under MiCA falls into this same pattern. Full transparency, complete regulation — the era of hiding money from the euro and the European tax authorities is, in this domain, definitively over within the EU.
The digital euro is meant to serve as the overarching framework tying these individual measures together. It is a technologically ambitious — perhaps overly ambitious — project: together with the ECB, the EU is setting out to build a digital central bank currency, a CBDC, on the basis of blockchain technology.
That would mean total control over the transaction activity of every economic actor in the eurozone — a concentration of power in the hands of the ECB, an institution long since subordinated to the political machinery of Brussels.
Each of these measures, taken individually, could function as a capital control in a crisis scenario. Europeans’ capital would then be trapped within the EU, should a severe financial and sovereign debt crisis occur.
For bank customers, this effectively marks the end of international diversification options. Safeguarding savings outside an increasingly volatile and heavily indebted financial and monetary system will, for many, become impossible — a kind of Neo-Bretton Woods is emerging, a classic control framework of the sort that over-indebted states — including, by now, the EU bloc itself — have repeatedly applied throughout history in order to secure, ultimately, access to their citizens’ private wealth.
The so-called reverse solicitation loophole offers no relief here either. This refers to the theoretical exemption allowing foreign banks to continue serving EU customers if the initiative demonstrably came from the customer alone — meaning the customer approached the bank on their own, without any active solicitation on the bank’s part. The burden of proof rests entirely with the bank, and even a German-language website or a single instance of active outreach can be construed as improper market solicitation, voiding the exemption. The result: banks, out of sheer caution, would rather forgo EU customers altogether than rely on a barely provable claim of customer-initiated contact in a dispute.
Ultimately, the European Commission’s strategy points clearly toward one goal: looking without rose-tinted EU glasses at the fiscal trajectory of Paris, Madrid, Rome, or, by now, even Berlin, coercive measures for capital control and euro stabilization will, from the perspective of those in power, become unavoidable.
Read more My Christmas with Dolly: A Love Story