Rabobank · Governance finding · severity 2 of 5
On 22 February 2023 the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights (College voor de Rechten van de Mens) found in opinion 2023-22 that Rabobank made a prohibited distinction on the ground of nationality when its account-acceptance policy automatically rejected a Dutch charitable foundation's request for a business account because too few of its directors lived in the Netherlands. The Institute accepted the bank's anti-money-laundering aim and found the residence rule suitable, but held that the automatic rejection of applicants who failed it went further than necessary; Rabobank could instead invite them to show in another way that the relationship was legitimate. In April 2023 the Institute said Rabobank had told it that it had changed the policy on this point. The rule was automated and not described as AI.
Record last reviewed Oct 21, 2026 · Markdown
Date
Institution
Rabobank
Country
Netherlands
AI system
Rules-based account-acceptance policy that automatically rejected business-account applicants not meeting a Dutch-residence condition for directors; not described as AI
AI?
Automated system not described as AI
The system was automated, but neither the institution nor a regulator described it as AI; it is listed because it is routinely discussed as an AI failure.
Category
Status
Resolved
Severity
2 of 5
Impact
One foundation could not open a business account; the Institute recorded the harm to its chair personally. · No fine, compensation or loss figure is recorded in the opinion. Rabobank has not published how many applicants the residence rule rejected.
What happened?
In spring 2022 a Dutch foundation active in the charitable sector tried to open a business account at Rabobank. Two of its three board members, including the chair, have Surinamese nationality and live in Suriname; the treasurer is Dutch and lives in the Netherlands. Rabobank refused because the foundation did not meet two conditions of its acceptance policy: it had no ANBI status or CBF recognition, and at least two directors had to have a Dutch home address and a private Rabobank account, one at acceptance and the second within a year. The chair asked the Institute for an opinion on 4 July 2022; the hearing was on 11 January 2023.[1]
Rabobank argued that as a gatekeeper under the Dutch anti-money-laundering act (Wwft) and sanctions law it must investigate prospective clients, that it formulated objective acceptance criteria to keep that work manageable and avoid arbitrariness, and that the conditions had nothing to do with nationality. It said it was willing to investigate further if a rejected prospect complained. The Institute found the ANBI/CBF condition did not distinguish on nationality, but that the residence condition affected non-Dutch nationals in particular and was therefore indirect distinction.[1]
The Institute accepted the bank's aim as legitimate and the residence rule as suitable, but not as necessary. It noted that applying the rule "leidt automatisch tot afwijzing van prospects die hier niet aan voldoen" ("automatically leads to the rejection of prospects who do not meet it"; our translation) and concluded: "Het College is echter van oordeel dat de automatische afwijzing van een aanvraag, wanneer niet aan het woonplaatsvereiste voldaan is, verder gaat dan noodzakelijk is om het doel van verweerster te bereiken" ("The Institute finds, however, that the automatic rejection of an application when the residence requirement is not met goes further than necessary to achieve the respondent's aim"; our translation). It held that Rabobank had made a prohibited distinction on the ground of nationality.[1][2]
In an April 2023 article on banks refusing customers, the Institute said banks use both algorithms that search for suspicious characteristics and policies that keep certain risks out in advance, and that banks should not use such criteria as rejection criteria. It reported that Rabobank had since told it the policy had been adjusted following the opinion.[2]
When did it happen?
- Jul 4, 2022
The foundation's chair asks the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights for an opinion after Rabobank refuses a business account.[1]
- Jan 11, 2023
The Institute hears the case.[1]
- Feb 22, 2023
The Institute issues opinion 2023-22 finding that Rabobank made a prohibited distinction on the ground of nationality.[1]
- Apr 4, 2023
The Institute reports that Rabobank has told it the acceptance policy was adjusted following the opinion.[2]
What was the impact?
- Customers: One foundation could not open a business account; the Institute recorded the harm to its chair personally.[1]
- Other: No fine, compensation or loss figure is recorded in the opinion. Rabobank has not published how many applicants the residence rule rejected.[1]
Severity 2 of 5: Limited harm and a policy reversal: the Netherlands Institute for Human Rights found prohibited indirect discrimination against one applicant, no fine or loss figure is recorded, and Rabobank changed its acceptance policy afterwards.
How did Rabobank respond?
Before the Institute, Rabobank said the conditions were objective criteria needed to perform its gatekeeper duties under the Wwft and sanctions law and had nothing to do with nationality, and that it had deliberately not stopped serving the charitable sector altogether, unlike some other banks. After the opinion Rabobank told the Institute it had adjusted its policy on this point. We found no separate public statement by Rabobank as of 2026-10-21.[1][2]
What was the outcome, and did regulators act?
The Institute found a prohibited distinction on the ground of nationality and recommended informing applicants who fail the residence rule and inviting them to show the legitimacy of the relationship in another way. Rabobank told the Institute it had changed its acceptance policy accordingly.[1][2]
Did Rabobank discriminate when it refused a business account?
The Netherlands Institute for Human Rights found in February 2023 that it did: Rabobank's rule that at least two directors live in the Netherlands indirectly distinguished on nationality, and automatically rejecting applicants who failed it went further than necessary. The Institute's finding is an opinion, not a court judgment.
Was Rabobank's account-acceptance system AI?
No. The opinion describes a written acceptance policy whose residence condition automatically led to rejection. Neither the Institute nor Rabobank described it as AI or machine learning, so the register treats it as an automated, rules-based system not described as AI.
What did Rabobank change after the ruling?
According to the Institute's April 2023 article, Rabobank told it that it had adjusted its acceptance policy on this point. The Institute had suggested informing applicants who fail the residence rule about its purpose and inviting them to prove the legitimacy of the relationship in another way.
Was Rabobank fined for the discrimination finding?
No fine or compensation is recorded. The Institute issues opinions on whether equal-treatment law was breached; the opinion in this case found a prohibited distinction against the foundation's chair, and Rabobank responded by changing its acceptance policy.
- Oordeel 2023-22: Coöperatieve Rabobank U.A. (Rabobank) discrimineert een vrouw op grond van nationaliteit door met haar acceptatiebeleid vereisten te stellen aan het woonadres van de bestuurder(s) van een stichting official
- Verzoek geweigerd – Mogen banken klanten afwijzen op grond van nationaliteit? official
When AI goes wrong at a bank, the next morning's brief says so.
when one of these regulators moves, the next morning's brief says so · six sourced stories · 7 am PT · free
plus every regulation, bank and agent page update, the morning after · leave any morning