In Brief: Swiss Supreme Court Denies Post-Finance Debanking

In a ruling the Federal Supreme Court has held in 4A_454/2025 of 3^rd March 2026 that PostFinance cannot refuse basic payment services to a client solely on the basis of US and UK sanctions designations where the client does not appear on any Swiss sanctions list.

BACKGROUND

The claimant, a Russian national resident in Switzerland, was designated as a Specially Designated National by OFAC under a US Executive Order concerning Russia-related sanctions.  He was also subject to UK financial restrictions, but no equivalent measures had been adopted against him in Switzerland. In 2022, PostFinance opened an account in Swiss Francs for the claimant but promptly closed it on the basis of his US sanctions status.

The claimant challenged the closure. The Commercial Court of the Canton of Bern ruled in his favour, ordering PostFinance to maintain a payment account and cash deposit facilities of up to CHF 15,000 per month for domestic transactions within Switzerland.

PostFinance appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, which dismissed the appeal.

THE COURT’S ANALYSIS

The case turned on the scope of PostFinance’s statutory duty to provide basic payment services under the Swiss Postal Act and Postal Ordinance, and whether foreign sanctions could justify invoking the exceptions to that duty. Under the Postal Ordinance, PostFinance may refuse access to such services where their provision would conflict with national or international rules on financial markets, anti-money laundering or embargoes, where compliance with those rules would entail disproportionately excessive costs, or where serious legal or reputational harm is at risk.

The Federal Supreme Court held that those exceptions were not met in the present case. The claimant’s situation, even considering the US and UK measures, did not create an immediate conflict with Switzerland’s regulatory framework. Enhanced due diligence obligations, including those associated with high-risk categories such as politically exposed persons, can generally be met through appropriate compliance measures. PostFinance had not demonstrated that meeting those obligations in this case would give rise to disproportionately excessive costs.

Crucially, the Court set a high threshold for what qualifies as a disproportionate burden: a merely noticeably higher level of effort compared to a retail customer is not sufficient. The Court ruled that the effort must exceed even the average level of effort typically associated with categories of clients that already require enhanced checks, departing from the position set out in the federal administration’s 2020 Explanatory Report on the partial revision of the Postal Ordinance.

KEY IMPLICATIONS

• The ruling is specific to PostFinance’s statutory mandate: The decision concerns PostFinance’s legal duty to provide basic payment services under the Swiss Postal Act and Postal Ordinance. It should not be read as imposing the same access obligation on commercial banks.
• Exceptions must be substantiated: PostFinance could not rely on general compliance concerns, average internal costs, or abstract legal and reputational risks. The Court required a concrete showing that the statutory conditions for excluding the client from basic payment services were met.
• Foreign sanctions are not self-executing in Switzerland: The ruling reinforces the principle of territoriality. A foreign designation alone does not confer a legal basis to deny services under Swiss law.

At SKANDAMIS AVOCATS, we advise banks and financial institutions on regulatory, contractual and contentious matters, including the structuring of client relationships, cross-border issues, and the management of legal and reputational risk under Swiss law.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.