By Tyler Durden
Written by Nick Corbishley on NakedCapitalism.com,
Readers in the UK may recall the moment almost exactly three years ago when the term “debanking” entered British parlance. The prestigious London private bank Coutts had just decided to close Nigel Farage’s bank account due to his questionable political views and alleged links to Russia. This decision proved to be very costly.
Almost immediately, Farage did what he does best: he triggered a massive media frenzy. Within a very short time, two high-ranking figures in the banking industry fell: Dame Alison Rose, the CEO of Coutts’ parent bank and the “Big Four” credit institution NatWest (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland), and Peter Flavel, the CEO of Coutts.
Within a month, NatWest’s share price had plummeted by 8%, wiping £1 billion from the company’s market capitalization, which was largely propped up by public funds, and generating hefty profits for the hedge funds that had shorted the stock. As we reported at the time, the resulting scandal brought much-needed public attention to a long-standing but accelerating trend – the “debanking” of individuals and organizations with politically inconvenient views.
This is hardly an isolated incident: As I reported several weeks ago, banks on both sides of the Atlantic are increasingly freezing their customers’ accounts, often without explanation. I cited the example of Elad Nehorai, a writer, activist, and socio-political commentator living in California, whose political views and ideals could not be further removed from those of Nigel Farage. Yet his account at Bank of America, where he had been a customer for many years, was abruptly closed without any apparent warning or explanation.
Without a bank account, participating in economic life is almost impossible. And it’s becoming increasingly difficult as access to and use of cash are restricted. As Alex Lo writes for the South China Morning Post: “Banking is a basic service like water and electricity, and that’s precisely why democratic societies are increasingly turning to it for censorship and repression.”
The subsequent government investigation concluded that customers were not “excluded from the banking system” for political reasons. As a result, the debanking process not only continued, but the affected customers now also face the threat of being barred from opening new accounts at other banks, as reported by the Telegraph on Monday.
Banks are planning to prevent “debanked” customers from opening accounts with other credit institutions, which could effectively exclude innocent people from the financial system, as “The Telegraph” can reveal.
The lobby group UK Finance is currently developing a platform through which banks can exchange data about their customers if they detect “signs of economic crime”.
Lloyds, Barclays and Revolut have already started exchanging customer data following a pilot project in 2024, which has led to the blocking or closure of accounts, as reported by “The Telegraph”.
The data-sharing platform will build on this pilot project to create a nationwide system in the UK that could automatically prevent people from opening another account.
However, concerns have been raised that thousands of innocent customers and businesses who have been wrongly denied access to banking could be prevented from opening an account with another bank, effectively excluding them from the financial system.
The latest victim of the “debanking” trend is the left-wing news website The Canary , which accuses Lloyds Banking Group of “withholding a significant portion of our money” – after almost a decade of cooperation. The news outlet – which describes itself as a “radical working-class media outlet” – states: “Lloyds has not explained why it has taken this action… despite multiple attempts to contact them.”
In a statement released on Tuesday, “The Canary” speculated about possible reasons for Lloyds’ decision, including the portal’s anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian stance:
Even though we don’t yet know the reasons for our account being blocked, we mustn’t be naive about this matter.
We know that numerous other politically active people have recently experienced similar measures from other banks. We are fully aware that powerful banks are able to restrict the financial activities of anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian organizations and individuals.
It is outrageous that “The Canary” was plunged into financial instability without warning or explanation from Lloyds.
Starmer’s last attack
It would hardly be surprising if the attack were a reaction to the pro-Palestinian stance of “The Canary.” The British government has done everything in its considerable power to criminalize pro-Palestinian, anti-genocide activism, including abolishing the old right to a jury trial. With its new National Security Bill, the outgoing government under Keir Starmer is attempting to impose literal laws against thoughtcrimes—in Orwell’s homeland, the United Kingdom.
Translations of “X”: I have to explain something very important to you. The law the government used to arrest me, Section 12(1A) — the very first use against a journalist — is a very short line. It is deliberately vague. And they have included this exact line in the new National Security Bill.
Here is Section 12(1A) of the Terrorism Act in full: “A person commits an offense if that person expresses an opinion or belief supporting a prohibited organization.” No action required. No material support. A literal thoughtcrime that prohibits analysis and journalism.
You can say something that is 100% fact-based, but if it portrays a “banned organization” — even one that has never harmed the UK—in a “good” light, you can get 14 years in prison. (This is also taken from the Terrorism Act.) Anything you say can be twisted.
An article in The Canary explains how serious the threat is that the new National Security Law poses to journalism and political dissidents, describing it as “a final power grab” by the outgoing government under Keir Starmer:
As I sit here writing this, a feeling of fear washes over me. I’m a journalist. It’s my job to be informed about world events. At The Canary, we pride ourselves on bringing people the news the mainstream media won’t touch. But this fear is nothing compared to what other people must be going through right now.
This radical instrumentalization of the new legislation will hit marginalized communities first and hardest. Journalists and social workers with direct, intimate, and painful connections to global conflict zones face a massive legal trap. If a reporter even quotes an organization that the Interior Minister has designated as a threat, they face immediate prosecution.
Civil rights groups warn that the law will grant the Interior Ministry absolute power to decide who is allowed to speak out. And by keeping the definition of “supporting an organization classified as a threat” vague, the state has created a total monopoly on interpreting events. It will likely be quite clear: either you follow their lead and abide by the rules, or you go to prison.
The independent media company Zeteo warned of the grave dangers of this new takeover. The company cautioned that journalists could face immediate arrest simply for conducting interviews with banned groups in the public interest. The public will only hear one side of the story. We will only be presented with a single narrative… and that will be the government’s.
The timing of Lloyds Bank’s cancellation of The Canary’s subscription is also curious, as it came just two months after the announcement of the launch of a daily left-wing print tabloid – one that champions Palestinian rights. Following a cash injection last year from Cecil Hetherington, the founder of a used car and property website, Canary director Steve Topple praised the new tabloid as an alternative to corporate press.
Following the account freeze, “The Canary” says it is now in a “precarious financial situation” and does not know when “the money withheld by Lloyds will be repaid” or how this will affect “our ability to open a new bank account in the future”.
“The immediate consequence is that we can’t pay either staff or contractors,” Topple told Novara Media. “We have a large team, and they are all now extremely desperate and in a precarious situation. Many of them belong to marginalized groups, and the situation has hit them very hard. We are trying our best to alleviate the situation and have received very welcome support from the public so far.”
Lloyds’ actions have already triggered a wave of protests from across the political spectrum.
Translations of “X”: This is a disgraceful move by @LloydsBank. Make no mistake, it is an attack on all independent media in the UK that do not toe the government line. If Lloyds does not rectify this immediately, a nationwide boycott campaign should follow.
UPDATE: Canary downgraded by Lloyds. Lloyds has downgraded Canary without warning or explanation, plunging the broadcaster into a severe financial crisis. https://thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2026/06/30/lloyds-canary/
Translation of “X”: Corbyn told “The Canary” that the anti-democratic attempt to silence an independent news site was “a very dangerous path”.
Translation of “X”: The Canary was debanked by Lloyds. Debanking is one of the most vicious forms of exclusion an individual or organization can face—something the FSU is all too familiar with. Lloyds has offered no explanation for its decision and has not informed The Canary when its funds will be returned. We are in contact with The Canary and ready to assist.
An increasing phenomenon
The first major target of “debanking” in the United Kingdom well over a decade ago was members of the British Muslim community, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian activism. However, unlike Farage’s case, their plight was met with complete silence in the mainstream media, as veteran journalist Peter Oborne describes in the following video.
Translation of “X”: Peter Oborne exposes Nigel Farage’s prejudices against banks
When Farage lost access to Coutts’ banking services in the summer of 2023, banks in the United Kingdom were closing almost a thousand accounts a day; in 2022, just over 343,000 accounts were closed, compared to about 45,000 in 2017.
Following the Farage affair, the Financial Conduct Authority conducted an investigation into the banks’ “debanking” practices, concluding that the banks had not closed their customers’ accounts for political reasons. Farage called the finding “ridiculous”.
In the US, Scott Ritter, the former weapons inspector for the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and prominent critic of US and Western imperialism, is among the latest victims of “debanking.” In January, his bank of 26 years—Citizens’ Bank—closed all his accounts, including joint accounts with his wife and daughters, without explanation, as he recounts in the opening minutes of the following interview with Judge Napolitano:
In a letter to Ritter Citizens Bank, it was apparently stated that the bank was not only not obligated to disclose the reasons for closing his accounts, but that Citizens Bank’s policies actively prevent any disclosure of information regarding the account closure decision. As the Cato Institute notes, this silence is often related to confidentiality laws.
However, these are not laws designed to protect customers’ financial privacy. Rather, this secrecy is intended to prevent citizens from learning that they are under criminal investigation. For example, reports filed under the Bank Secrecy Act are subject to such strict restrictions that banks are prohibited from disclosing details of the reports or even admitting that such a report exists.
Although Ritter does not know the exact reasons for his “debanking” action, he suspects that someone at the FBI, who was aware of “the entirety of [his] bank transactions”, “informed” Citizens Bank about “suspicious activity”, which led Citizens Bank to file a SAR [Suspicious Activity Report].
Ritter believes that donations he received and subsequent cash withdrawals prior to his three trips to Russia in 2025—a country cut off from the Western economy due to US and EU sanctions—may have triggered this action. According to Ritter, the “purpose of de-banking is to harass a specific individual,” even in the absence of evidence pointing to criminal activity.
The reasons for account closure are often a mystery to affected customers, but frequently involve operational factors. Simply put, a financial institution decides to close a customer’s account because the reputational risks associated with that customer are simply too high. In some high-profile cases, however, political or ideological motives appear to play a role.
The clearest example of this was the Canadian government’s decision in February 2022 to invoke emergency legislation to force banks to freeze the accounts of the “Freedom Convoy” protesters who had blocked several key border crossings. According to the minutes of a meeting between Canada’s Minister for Economic Affairs, Vice President and WEF board member Chrystia Freeland, and senior bank executives the day before the legislation was triggered, one CEO expressed concern that forcing banks to close accounts could make it appear as if the sector was being used “as an arm of the government” or even “as a political weapon.”
In 2022, PayPal suspended the accounts of the UK-based Free Speech Union, its founder Toby Young, and his online publication, the Daily Sceptic , for alleged violations of its hate speech policy. Even worse, the fintech giant secretly added a clause to its terms of service granting it the right to fine customers $2,500 for spreading misinformation. When the news broke and sparked a massive public backlash, PayPal claimed it was all a big mistake.
Of course, as NC readers EssCetera and Rev Kev pointed out in comments on a previous post, PayPal has a long and eventful history of such incidents, dating back to the suspension of the WikiLeaks account in 2010. And banks in the US have been closing the accounts of porn industry workers since at least 2014 as part of “Operation Chokepoint,” which targeted certain undesirable but legal sectors of the economy (h/t Michaelmas).
From “debanking” to “civilian death”
If there is a fate worse than “debanking,” it is the ordeal of “civilian death.” Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Occupied Palestinian Territories, was subjected to US sanctions about a year ago that cut her and her family off not only from US banking but also from travel and technology services.
In Albanese’s case, it was clear to her why she was subject to restrictions normally reserved for drug lords and terrorists: she had just published a UN report denouncing the more than 60 (mostly Western) multinational corporations that were allegedly complicit in and profiting from Israel’s military occupation of the Gaza Strip.
“This anger [arose] because I provoked the bear,” she said. “Not in one eye, but in both eyes.”
Translation of “X”: “The moment I pointed out that there are companies profiting from this, yes, that’s when I was sanctioned.” The first UN expert in 80 years to be sanctioned by the US explains why she now faces a US travel ban, frozen accounts, the impossibility of doing banking anywhere, canceled health insurance, and even canceled hotel bookings in Europe. UN Special Rapporteur @FranceskAlbs had previously reported that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip constitute genocide. But Washington went after her after she documented the complicity of companies—including Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Palantir, banks, pension funds, and others—that enable “an economy of occupation that is turning into an economy of genocide.” Criticizing Israel was not enough to trigger US retaliation, she says. However, exposing who profits from what Carlson called “mass murder” was sufficient. Albanese spoke with @TuckerCarlson in the interview excerpt shown below. The link to the full interview can be found in the reply. https://x.com/ase/status/199
In the following video, Albanese explains (in French), while fighting back tears, the extent to which she has been denied participation in normal civilian life since the imposition of US sanctions against her:
“I can neither pay with my working credit card nor make transfers; my health insurance has been cancelled, I cannot make hotel reservations… I am being treated as if I were Pablo Escobar.”
Translation of “X”: UN official Albanese described the financial and insurance restrictions imposed on her after she publicly described Israeli actions as genocide. “I cannot make payments with my working credit card, nor can I make transfers; my health insurance has been canceled, I cannot make hotel reservations.”
Other victims of this “civilian death,” this time at the hands of EU authorities, include German journalist Hüseyin Doğru and Jacques Baud, a retired Swiss colonel and former senior NATO strategic analyst. In both cases, the justifications were overtly ideological. Baud was accused of acting as a “mouthpiece” for pro-Russian propaganda and spreading “conspiracy theories” about the war in Ukraine, while Doğru was targeted for his reporting on the Gaza Strip.
In Doğru’s case, his wife and mother were also sanctioned (h/t vao). No criminal charges were brought in either case, and since the sanctions are defined as administrative measures within the EU bureaucracy, neither Baud nor Doğru can appeal in a court in their respective countries of residence (Belgium and Germany). That is the very definition of “Kafkaesque”.
Even worse: This type of process could soon be almost universally automated, as I warned in my book Scanned, published in 2022:
The combination of central bank digital currencies with digital identity cards, coupled with the gradual phasing out or even banning of cash, would give governments and central banks the ability not only to track every purchase we make (and have made in the past), but also to determine what we are allowed to spend our money on and what we are not. They could also prevent certain “undesirable” individuals from making any purchases at all. Anyone with a block on their digital identity would be “unable to do many of the most basic things independently,” says [German financial journalist Norbert] Häring.
Incidentally, the digital euro has already become a de facto reality, after the European Parliament’s (EP) Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs gave the green light to the eurozone’s central bank digital currency (CBDC) last week. This fact was probably unknown even to many members of our well-informed readership, as it all occurred against a backdrop of near-total media silence.
***
