Scope and purpose: This timeline examines the claim commonly framed as “Banks Secretly Block Crypto.” It collects documented bank policies, regulator actions, and major news reports so readers can see what is recorded in public sources, where interpretations diverge, and which elements remain unproven. The word “secretly” in the claim is treated as part of the allegation; this article evaluates the available public evidence and notes where secrecy or intentional concealment is asserted but not documented.
Banks secretly block crypto: Timeline: key dates and turning points
- September–October 2023 — Chase UK signals and implements transaction declines for crypto-related payments (bank email / press reporting). Multiple news outlets reported that Chase UK informed customers it would decline debit-card and outgoing bank-transfer payments suspected to be for cryptocurrency purchases, effective October 16, 2023. Reporting cites an email from the bank and framed the move as consumer-protection against scams.
- July 24, 2024 — HSBC Australia announces automatic declines for payments to cryptocurrency exchanges (bank notice / company web page). HSBC Australia published an FAQ and notice saying it would automatically decline payments it reasonably believed were going to cryptocurrency exchanges, framing the step as a fraud-prevention measure. The bank’s own help page explains the operational change and rationale.
- Mid–2024 — Several Australian banks and some other institutions restrict payments to crypto-exchanges (industry reporting). Cointelegraph and other outlets reported a cluster of Australian banks restricting or blocking payments to crypto platforms in mid‑2024, with banks citing scam activity and customer protection. These reports describe an observable pattern in one jurisdiction rather than a covert, coordinated global policy.
- January 7, 2025 — Portuguese bank BiG and other European banks restrict fiat transfers to crypto platforms (news report quoting bank notification and ECB/EBA guidance). CryptoSlate reported that Banco de Investimentos Globais started blocking transfers to crypto platforms, citing compliance with guidance from European authorities and national rules on anti-money laundering and counter‑terrorist financing. The item refers to a bank notification shared publicly.
- March 7 and March 28, 2025 — U.S. federal regulators (OCC and FDIC) issued statements clarifying that some banks may engage in certain crypto activities without prior approval (regulatory statements / Reuters reporting). In early 2025 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the FDIC published or were reported to have clarified permissibility for some crypto-related banking activities, a move widely covered by Reuters. Those regulatory statements represent a regulatory trend toward clearer authorization for particular bank crypto activities, not an instruction to block customer payments.
- June 25–27, 2025 — Barclays and card network restrictions on credit‑card purchases of crypto (industry reporting). Barclays announced it would stop customers using Barclaycard credit cards to buy cryptocurrency, citing consumer protection and debt risk; media coverage described the policy and its effective date. This is an example of a bank/card product restriction rather than a secret transactional interdiction.
- 2023–2025 — Ongoing regulatory drafts and proposals in Europe increase capital or compliance costs for bank crypto exposure (regulatory drafts / industry analysis). The European Banking Authority and related bodies have produced draft rules and proposals that would impose high capital requirements or stricter risk weights on banks’ crypto exposures; industry coverage highlighted these drafts as a factor influencing banks’ commercial approaches. Such regulatory pressure has been cited by some banks when limiting crypto-related services.
- 2023–2025 — Local, product-level blocking vs. documented systemic covert blocking. News reporting across jurisdictions documents many examples where banks publicly changed payment rules (e.g., declined transfers, blocked card purchases, or operationally flagged crypto-related merchants). These actions are typically accompanied by a public notice or bank FAQ, meaning they are often observable policy decisions rather than hidden or ‘‘secret’’ instructions—though critics describe some implementation details (like transaction flagging rules) as opaque. Examples: Chase UK (email reported), HSBC Australia (public FAQ), Barclays (public card policy).
Where the timeline gets disputed
Key points of disagreement or ambiguity in public sources:
- Whether blocking is covert or publicly documented. Many documented cases show banks announcing or publishing the change (e.g., HSBC Australia’s web page). Where critics say banks are ‘‘secretly’’ blocking payments, available evidence often shows at least some public notification or media reporting; disputes mostly center on the transparency of technical criteria used to flag transactions.
- Motivation: consumer protection vs. risk management vs. de‑banking politics. Banks commonly cite fraud prevention, compliance risk, and capital/regulatory costs as reasons to limit crypto payments. Some advocates interpret these actions as political or anti‑crypto. Public documents and bank statements typically emphasize fraud and compliance; assertions about broader political intent are more interpretive and not directly proven by the cited documents.
- Jurisdictional variation and timing. Actions are uneven: Australian and some UK banks publicly restricted payments in 2023–2024; European capital-rule drafts and Portuguese bank notices appeared in early 2025; U.S. federal regulators in 2025 moved toward clarifying permissible crypto banking activity. These conflicting trends—some banks restricting customer payments while some regulators ease banks’ access to crypto activities—are documented and create apparent contradiction in narrative about a global coordinated blocking.
- Evidence of coordination vs. independent decisions. Reporting shows many independent bank announcements and national regulator actions. We did not find documentary evidence of an international, secret directive instructing banks to block crypto; instead the record shows a mix of bank-level policy changes, regulatory proposals, and public statements. Where researchers or commentators allege coordination, those claims require evidence (internal memos, interbank directives, or regulator-to-bank confidential instructions) that is not present in the public record reviewed here.
Evidence score (and what it means)
- Evidence score: 48 / 100
- Score drivers:
- Multiple documented, dated bank-level policy changes or public notices (e.g., Chase UK email reporting; HSBC Australia help page) provide verifiable events.
- Regulatory activity (EBA drafts, ECB/other statements) and public bank FAQs explain risk and compliance drivers, supporting plausible motive-based explanations.
- Geographic variability and the absence of public internal or interbank directives reduce the strength of evidence for a coordinated, secret global blocking program. No primary leaked directives or court judgments proving coordination were found in this search.
- Some claims about ‘‘secret’’ coordination rely on inference or testimony not yet in the public record; these elements lower the overall documentation score.
Evidence score is not probability:
The score reflects how strong the documentation is, not how likely the claim is to be true.
FAQ
Do banks secretly block crypto transactions?
What is documented: there are multiple public examples where banks changed policies to decline or flag payments to cryptocurrency platforms (e.g., Chase UK announcements reported in September 2023; HSBC Australia’s July 2024 customer notice). What is disputed: whether such actions are ‘‘secret’’ or covert. In the cases identified, banks either published notices or media outlets reported the changes; the claim that a widespread secret program exists is not supported by the public documents we found.
Why do banks say they block or decline crypto payments?
Banks publicly state reasons including increased fraud and scams, anti‑money‑laundering and counter‑terrorist financing compliance concerns, and regulatory capital or operational risk. These reasons appear in bank notices and industry reporting; regulators’ draft rules in Europe have also been cited as influencing bank risk calculations.
Is there evidence of coordinated or regulatory orders forcing banks to block crypto?
In the sources reviewed, we found no public primary documents demonstrating a secret coordinated order from a regulator or interbank body requiring blocking of crypto payments. Instead the public record shows a mixture of bank-level policy changes and regulatory drafts or clarifications that influence bank decisions. That said, regulatory pressure and differing national rules create incentives that can produce similar outcomes across multiple banks without a secret directive.
How should consumers check if their bank is blocking crypto payments?
Check official bank communications (emails, website help pages, product terms), monitor transaction failure messages, and consult reputable news reports. Banks often post FAQs explaining changes (for example, HSBC Australia’s help page explaining declined payments). If in doubt, contact the bank’s customer service for an explicit policy statement.
This article is for informational and analytical purposes and does not constitute legal, medical, investment, or purchasing advice.
