Opening an account for the single-owner company of a person with protection S status

The complainant, a person of Ukrainian origin who was granted protection S status with his family, wanted to set up a single-owner company in Switzerland. However, all the banks he approached refused to open an account for this company. This was despite the fact that the complainant had received the necessary authorization to operate as a sole trader, his company was already entered in the commercial register, and he had made concrete arrangements for the commencement of business activities. He then contacted the Ombudsman. After examining the complaint, the Ombudsman explained to him that banks in Switzerland, on the basis of their business policies, are generally free to decide whether or not to enter into a business relationship with someone. However, he also provided the complainant with information about the basic service mandate that PostFinance is required by law to provide for natural persons and legal entities domiciled, headquartered or with a branch in Switzerland. The complainant finally informed the Ombudsman that he had been able to open an account for his company with PostFinance.

The complainant had already opened an account in his name at a bank in Switzerland. However, like other banks he approached, the bank refused to open an account for the single-owner companyhe wanted to set up. He turned to the Ombudsman for support.

In conversation with the complainant, the Ombudsman explained to him that freedom of contract is an essential part of the Swiss legal system. In the banking sector, this means in particular that a bank is free to decide within the framework of its business policy whether to enter into, maintain or terminate a business relationship with a client. In principle, no one has a right to enter into a business relationship with a particular bank. The Ombudsman also explained to the Claimant that, unlike the other Swiss banks, PostFinance must offer all natural persons or legal entities domiciled, headquartered or established in Switzerland the opening and maintenance of an account for payment transactions, i.e. a service within the scope of the mandatory basic service mandate (see Art. 32 para. 1 Postal Act and Art. 2 para. 2 and 43 para. 1 lit. a Postal Ordinance). However, this obligation is not unlimited. In accordance with Art. 45 Postal Ordinace, PostFinance may refuse to open or manage an account if the provision of this service is in conflict with national or international provisions of financial market, money laundering or embargo legislation or if there is a risk of a serious violation of the law or damage to its reputation. It may also refuse to provide services as part of the mandatory basic service if their use would entail considerable financial risks for PostFinance or if monitoring the client relationship in order to fulfill its due diligence obligations would entail disproportionate costs for PostFinance.

The Ombudsman recommended that the complainant contact the banks operating in his canton of residence again. He advised him to base his application to open an account on documentation drawn up in as much detail aspossible. The Ombudsman also suggested that he submit an inquiry to PostFinance. However, it drew his attention to the fact that the mandatory mandate only includes services that are expressly provided for in Art. 43 para. 1 Postal Ordinance, in particular national payment transaction services in Swiss francs. In contrast, the mandatory public service does not include cross-border payment transactions with transfers in Swiss francs or in a foreign currency (Art. 43 para. 1to Postal Ordinance). An account offered by PostFinance as part of the mandatory basic service may therefore prove to be unsuitable for a company with foreign transactions. A few days later, the complainant contacted the Ombudsman again. He informed him that PostFinance had agreed to open a business relationship in the name of his single-owner company. Relieved, he thanked the Ombudsman for his advice.