Customer case

In April 2021, DNB was fined NOK 400 million by the Norwegian Financial Supervisory Authority due to deficiencies in
its anti-money laundering routines.

Since then, DNB has intensified its work on customer identification and control (KYC). This escalation appears to have had unintended consequences for some customers, in that DNB has terminated several customer relationships as part of this money laundering effort.

‍

Customer won in court

We have assisted several customers in cases against DNB, where DNB has terminated the customer relationship because they believe that the customers do not comply with money laundering regulations to a sufficient extent.

We recently assisted a business owner in Oslo District Court in a case against DNB, where DNB had terminated the customer relationship because they believed that satisfactory customer checks could not be carried out in accordance with the Money Laundering Act. Among other things, it was pointed out that our customer had acquired property in Dubai about 10 years ago and that the customer did not know the origin of the money. A lawsuit was filed against DNB with a claim that DNB's decision to terminate was invalid.
‍

After two years of fighting, DNB withdrew the termination and we were awarded full legal costs by the court.

‍

The bank's responsibility and the serious consequences for customers

DNB has the competence and authority to terminate companies and individuals and thus terminate the customer relationship with a bank. With this authority comes great responsibility. Losing a bank account/bank connection can have unforeseen consequences for a company. In the worst case, such a decision can mean the end of a company.

‍

Malpractice and the need for legal assistance

It seems that many customers have become an unintended victim of DNB's increased focus on KYC activities, where the bank's need to demonstrate action has come at the expense of correct case management.
‍

We therefore recommend that you engage a lawyer to go into detail about the basis for a termination. Please contact us for a free consultation with one of our experienced lawyers!

Insa lawyers recently assisted a client in a case where the Immigration Authorities had decided to revoke his citizenship. On behalf of the client, we brought the case to the District Court and argued that the decision to revoke citizenship was invalid.

‍

The district court agreed with our assessment, and the client was allowed to both retain his citizenship and cover his legal costs.

‍

Background of the case

The client first came to Norway in 2008 when he applied for asylum. At that time, his asylum application was rejected. In his application, he had given the wrong name and the wrong need for protection, but this was not discovered at that time. The client came to Norway again in 2012 and then applied for family immigration. Family immigration was granted, and in 2016, his application for citizenship was granted.
‍

In 2023, the customer received a letter from the UDI, informing them that they had made a decision to revoke his citizenship. The customer had then lived in Norway for 14 years, and had been a citizen for 8 years. The UDI had discovered that the customer, in connection with the family immigration application in 2012, had stated the wrong name and the wrong need for protection in the asylum application in 2008, and that he had failed to provide information about previous stays in Norway. The decision to revoke citizenship was upheld by UNE.
‍

Insa lawyers brought the decision before the district court

Insa lawyers brought the decision to revoke the citizenship to court and argued that the decision was invalid. On behalf of the client, we argued that the missing information had no direct bearing on the granting of citizenship and that this could therefore not lead to the revocation of citizenship. Secondly, it was argued that the revocation was disproportionate and that the exception in Section 26, fourth paragraph, of the Citizenship Act had to be applied.
‍

Disproportionate intervention

The court concluded that our client should be allowed to keep his citizenship because it would be disproportionate to withdraw it. The court pointed out that the case did not concern an ongoing lie, but an incorrect statement at an early stage in the case, which was later dropped. In other words, the case had a reduced degree of seriousness compared to normal cases in revocation cases. Furthermore, the client has lived in Norway for a long time. He has learned Norwegian, been in a full-time job and has made Norwegian friends. In addition, he has been a husband and bonus father in a Norwegian family. Apart from the incorrect statement in connection with the asylum application in 2008, he has been a law-abiding citizen and is well integrated.

‍

It was also a factor in the assessment that our client immediately admitted his mistakes and cooperated with the UDI when the incorrect information provided in the asylum application was discovered. Based on the overall assessment, the court concluded that the revocation constituted a disproportionate interference with the plaintiff, and the decision and ruling from UNE were declared invalid. Our client was also awarded full legal costs.

‍