In a recent ruling (decision 4A_454/2025 of March 3, 2026), the Swiss Federal Supreme Court clarified a previously unresolved legal issue by confirming that PostFinance AG may refuse to open a bank account if doing so leads to disproportionate costs. This ground for refusal, set out in the Postal Services Ordinance (OPO), was found to have sufficient legal basis, but in the case at hand, PostFinance failed to establish that such costs actually existed (decision 4A_454/2025 of March 3, 2026). Other grounds for refusal set out in OPO did not persuade the federal judges.
Background
In 2022, a Russian national residing in Switzerland applied to open an account with PostFinance. The bank initially approved the application, but notified the client six days later that the account would be closed. The decision was driven by the client's designation on the US Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctions list. In support of its decision, PostFinance cited concerns about potential repercussions, particularly regarding the unpredictability of US policy. The client was not subject to Swiss sanctions by the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (SECO), unlike a member of the client’s family (i.e. an uncle) who had been sanctioned by Switzerland due to connections to the Kremlin.
Universal service obligation
The Court examined whether an exception to PostFinance's universal service obligation applied. Under this obligation, PostFinance must provide and maintain accounts for individuals domiciled in Switzerland for domestic CHF transactions. The permissible grounds for refusing a business relationship are exhaustively listed in the OPO – if conflicts with an applicable financial market, anti-money laundering, or embargo regulations arise; if the relationship causes disproportionately high costs; or the relationship entails a risk of serious legal or reputational harm for PostFinance.
Court's assessment
The Court reviewed each of the grounds for exclusion set forth in the OPO and found that none of them applied in this case.
Legal or regulatory conflicts
The Court held that inclusion on a US sanctions list alone is insufficient to justify the exclusion of the client based on a legal or regulatory conflict.
This ground applies only where the relationship is prohibited under Swiss law or directly applicable international sanctions, such as those issued by SECO, the UN and a prohibited relationship under the Anti-Money Laundering Ordinance issued by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA).
Disproportionate costs
While confirming that this ground is legally valid, the Court found that PostFinance had not met the evidentiary threshold. PostFinance compared the workload of a "high-risk" client (i.e. approximately four hours for KYC and five hours annually for monitoring) with that of a "standard" client (i.e 18 minutes for KYC and no ongoing monitoring).
The Court rejected this comparison, stating that costs must be assessed against comparable high-risk categories, such as politically exposed persons, rather than standard clients.
Reputational or legal risk
The Court found no indication of a serious risk. It stated PostFinance has been unable to demonstrate to what extent the client was sanctioned abroad is likely to result in serious legal and reputational harm.
After evaluating the evidence submitted and the witness testimony during the main hearing, the lower court found the alleged risk of the US primary sanctions was not proven. Regarding possible US secondary sanctions, the lower court noted that US authorities have broad discretion. A postal account in CHF, however, would hardly raise suspicions, especially since the respondent's payments (e.g. for real estate costs, cleaning staff, doctors, communications, and taxes) were limited to domestic transfers in CHF and there were no indications the client could make transfers of a critical nature. The Court generally shared the analysis of the lower court.
Furthermore, the Court considered no serious legal harm could be inferred from the relationships with correspondent banks. PostFinance failed to demonstrate that these relationships were at risk, nor did they demonstrate to what extent this would constitute serious legal harm. Furthermore, no serious reputational damage that could reasonably be expected to occur had been established. A serious risk of secondary sanctions against the defendant does not appear to be probable, given the nature of the intended transactions and against this background.
Outlook
This decision marks the first explicit confirmation that disproportionate costs can justify refusal. The Court confirmed that the OPO constituted a sufficient legal basis. The Court did, however, confirm that the assessment must be made on a case-by-case basis. The outcome will depend on the specific circumstances of each case. In any instance, this highlights the fact that PostFinance cannot reject clients based on abstract arguments but must demonstrate concrete threat. For clients, this means that small accounts used for domestic and standard payments are likely to be excluded from this notion of threat. Each case, however, would need to be considered on its own merits.
For more information on financial services regulation and compliance in Switzerland, contact your CMS client partner or the CMS expert who wrote this article:
Dr. Vaïk Müller, Partner
Head of Banking & Finance
