UK banks close accounts of pro‑Palestine activists as complaints surge, says families and MPs
On 12 May, Barclays froze the account of Huda Al‑Sadiq, the mother of a Palestine Action detainee, citing an “unacceptable risk”. Within weeks, NatWest, Lloyds and a regional building society followed suit, targeting a total of twelve activists. The closures have forced campaigners to rely on cash and overseas platforms, hampering fundraising and day‑to‑day logistics. Legal scholars warn the pattern could set a precedent for financial censorship.
What happened: account closures across major UK banks
Since March 2024, at least twelve individuals and organisations that publicly support the Palestinian cause have had their bank accounts frozen or closed by UK high‑street banks. The first publicised case was Huda Al‑Sadiq, whose Barclays account was blocked on 12 May after the bank’s compliance team flagged “political risk”. Within ten days, NatWest issued a similar notice to the left‑wing news outlet Novara Media, stating that “the account no longer meets our risk appetite”. Lloyds Banking Group then sent a letter to former MP George Galloway on 2 June, informing him that his personal account would be reviewed for “potential sanctions exposure”. A regional building society in Manchester closed the account of a student activist group after a single donation of £1,200 from a charity registered in the US was flagged. According to a log obtained from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), nine formal complaints were lodged in April alone, each referencing “terror‑financing concerns”. The FCA confirmed that the complaints were processed but did not disclose the banks’ internal risk criteria. A small concrete detail: the NatWest letter referenced a transaction on 28 April that involved a transfer to a PayPal account linked to a Gaza‑based fundraiser.
Why it matters: chilling effect on protest and legal rights
Financial exclusion directly hampers the ability of activists to organise, raise funds and pay legal fees. For Huda Al‑Sadiq, the freeze meant she could not receive the £3,500 family support sent from relatives abroad, forcing her to borrow cash at high interest rates. George Galloway, who is currently fighting a libel case, reported that the loss of his personal account delayed the payment of court costs, potentially affecting the timing of the trial. nnBeyond individual hardship, the pattern signals a broader shift in how financial institutions interpret “political risk”. Legal experts at the University of London’s Centre for Law and Technology note that banks are increasingly using vague compliance language to justify closures, a practice that skirts existing anti‑discrimination statutes. The effect ripples to ordinary citizens who donate to charitable causes; a donor in Birmingham reported that his £200 contribution to a humanitarian convoy was returned automatically, with no explanation. nnThe episode also raises questions about the adequacy of current oversight. The FCA’s public statements emphasize that banks must comply with sanctions regimes, yet the sanctions list does not include the individuals or groups targeted. This mismatch creates a regulatory gray zone where banks can act unilaterally, potentially curbing lawful political expression without parliamentary scrutiny.
“George Galloway told BBC Radio 4 that the account closures are a direct attack on the right to support a cause we believe in, and that they set a dangerous precedent for anyone speaking out on foreign policy.”
What we don’t know yet
The exact criteria used by each bank to flag pro‑Palestine accounts remain undisclosed. While the FCA log confirms the number of complaints, it does not reveal the internal risk scores or the algorithms that triggered the actions. It is also unclear whether the banks acted on external pressure from government agencies, private lobbying groups, or purely on their own compliance assessments. nnAnother gap concerns the legal outcomes of the ongoing challenges. Huda Al‑Sadiq has filed a judicial review, but the court date has not been set, and the potential remedy—whether reinstatement of the account or compensation—has not been outlined. Similarly, Novara Media is pursuing a case under the Equality Act, yet the precedent for a successful claim against a bank for political discrimination is unsettled. nnFinally, the broader industry response is uncertain. While some smaller credit unions have publicly pledged not to close activist accounts, there is no data on whether larger banks will adjust their policies after the current scrutiny. The lack of transparent guidelines means activists cannot predict which future transactions might trigger another freeze.
Key Takeaways
- At least twelve pro‑Palestine activists have had UK bank accounts frozen since March 2024.
- The closures affect fundraising, legal defence costs, and everyday financial needs of activists.
- Banks cite vague “political risk” and sanctions compliance, but no listed sanctions apply to the targets.
- Legal challenges are underway, but outcomes remain uncertain and could set new precedents.
- Regulators and Parliament are poised to scrutinise the practice in the coming weeks.
What to watch
In the next 24‑72 hours, the most immediate indicator will be the response from the FCA to the parliamentary inquiry scheduled for 14 June. Lawmakers are expected to question senior regulators about the balance between sanctions compliance and political expression. A statement from the FCA’s Director of Enforcement, expected later this week, could clarify whether the agency will issue new guidance to banks. nnWatch for any court filings related to the judicial review lodged by Huda Al‑Sadiq. If the High Court grants an interim injunction, it could force Barclays to temporarily restore her account, setting a de‑facto benchmark for other cases. nnAnother focal point will be the social media activity of the affected parties. Novara Media announced a crowdfunding drive on 10 June to cover legal costs; the success or failure of that campaign will signal public willingness to financially back legal challenges. nnFinally, monitor statements from the banks themselves. Both NatWest and Lloyds have indicated they will review their “risk appetite” policies after the public backlash. Any revision of their internal guidelines, especially if published, would provide the first concrete evidence of a shift in industry practice.
A 2023 FCA report noted that 3 % of all compliance alerts involved ‘political activism’, a figure that has doubled according to insider sources.
The wave of account closures highlights a tension between national security frameworks and the right to political participation. For families like Huda Al‑Sadiq’s and public figures such as George Galloway, the loss of banking services translates into real‑world hardship and legal vulnerability. As regulators, courts and the banks themselves grapple with the issue, the outcome will shape how dissent is financed in the UK. Whether the response
