RN deputies report account closures after election – call for clear rules

Paris – 03.07.2026: Several deputies of the Rassemblement National (RN) have stated that their accounts were closed by banks or access was restricted shortly after their election. Media reports identify the affected as Stéphane Rambaud, Jean-Philippe Tanguy, Franck Allisio and Thomas Ménagé. They view the incidents as politically motivated and speak of discrimination in party competition.

According to the deputies, terminations and blocks occurred without detailed explanation. Party officials are demanding information on the criteria on the basis of which institutions end relationships with office holders. The RN is also calling for protective mechanisms to ensure the functioning of parliamentary work, for example in the handling of allowances, lump-sum expense reimbursements and the employment of staff. Reimbursement of campaign costs could also be affected if payments are not processed in time.

Banks have so far commented cautiously. They generally point to contractual freedoms, regulatory due diligence obligations and risk management – including reputational risks, know-your-customer checks and rules to combat money laundering and terrorist financing. For reasons of banking secrecy, individual cases are rarely commented on publicly, which reinforces criticism of a lack of transparency. Legally, institutions may terminate customer relationships, but must observe deadlines, terms and conditions and supervisory law.

Politically, the dispute comes at a time when the regulation of account terminations is being debated more intensively. There are initiatives in the National Assembly aimed at making abusive account closures more difficult and creating legal certainty for politically exposed persons. Also under discussion are concepts for a “Bank of Democracy” that could guarantee basic services to parties and candidates. Supporters see it as a safeguard for democratic participation; critics warn of state overreach and potential conflicts with the European supervisory framework.

For supervisors, two sets of questions arise: first, whether banks correctly fulfilled their verification and information obligations in the cases concerned. Second, how the special status of politically exposed persons (PEP) is practically handled in France – that is, which enhanced due diligence obligations apply and how discrimination can be avoided. Responsible bodies such as the Banque de France and the banking supervisor could respond to requests for information or examine complaints.

In the short term, in addition to possible legal complaints, formal inquiries in parliament are to be expected. The decisive question will be whether a structural problem can be proven or whether these are individual decisions justified on supervisory grounds. Clarity about procedures, deadlines and legal remedies would be important for deputies of all factions – as would be predictable guardrails for banks in the servicing of politically exposed customers.