After receiving the account closing order, the bank explained to the client that his Russian shares were held at the Russian National Settlement Depository. This organization is subject to sanctions in accordance with the applicable Swiss ordinance on measures in connection with Ukraine. Therefore, no transactions may be carried out with it and a sale is currently not possible. The custody account will therefore continue to be maintained at the usual conditions with regard to these shares until the situation changes. The bank also referred to its General Terms and Conditions, according to which it only provides services if it can comply with the applicable domestic and foreign legal and regulatory provisions, for example sanctions and money laundering regulations.

The client did not doubt this, but took the view that he might remain a paying client of the bank forever, although he would neither need nor use the business relationship with the bank. This is contrary to good faith and the provisions of the General Terms and Conditions and the Bank’s Trading and Safe Custody Conditions. He therefore suggested to the bank that his account and the associated custody account be “frozen” and that he continue to hold them “unused” but also free of charge. As soon as this becomes possible, the shares should be sold by agreement and the profits generated from the freeze should be divided equally. He would bear losses alone. In its reply, the bank had not responded to his proposals and had repeated its earlier explanations.

The Ombudsman regretted that the bank had not dealt with the client’s suggestions in its reply. He could also understand the client’s frustration with the situation created by the current legal framework. In this case, however, he saw neither a contractual nor a legal or at least a moral basis for the bank to accept the client’s proposal, and no valid arguments as to why it could not claim the fees it normally applied for the forced further management of the client’s shares and for maintaining the settlement account. Freedom of contract allows the bank to reject the client’s proposal to conclude a special agreement. The Ombudsman therefore did not see a basis for the mediation requested by the client and closed the file with these explanations to him.