Russian companies are increasingly being told that their money is available — provided they can reach a bank branch, complete paper instructions and wait for each payment to be examined. Online access to business accounts is being restricted more often as banks widen automated checks for suspicious transactions.
The pressure is visible in complaints to the Bank of Russia. In the first half of 2026, the regulator received 23,800 complaints about refused transactions and restrictions on accounts, around a third more than in the same period of 2025. Entrepreneurs accounted for about 8% of the total, or roughly 1,800 complaints.
The figures were reported on 28 October by Izvestia, which also cited lawyers who said disputes over restricted remote banking had risen by at least 10%. The numbers do not show that every banking restriction is unjustified. Banks have legal obligations to detect fraud and investigate potentially illicit transactions. They do, however, show the cost of a system in which a legitimate but unusual payment can disrupt an entire business before a human review is completed.
When an ordinary payment looks abnormal
Russian credit organisations can restrict online banking under 115-FZ, the law addressing the legalisation of criminal proceeds, and 161-FZ, which covers cashless transfers, electronic money, bank cards and protection against fraud. The rules give banks broad scope to examine customer activity and impose limits when an account appears to present a risk.
In 2026, the list of indicators used to identify suspicious transactions was reportedly expanded from six to 12. Automated anti-fraud systems consequently began testing a wider range of payment behaviour. A seasonal rise in revenue, a large one-off purchase, payments to self-employed contractors or a transfer that differs sharply from a company’s previous pattern may all trigger scrutiny.
That alert is not proof of wrongdoing. It is a signal that a transaction does not fit the bank’s risk profile. Yet the practical response can be immediate: a company may lose access to remote banking, face sharply reduced transfer limits or be required to conduct its affairs through a branch.
The Bank of Russia’s digital customer-risk assessment adds another possible barrier. A company placed in a high-risk category may have to challenge the decision through a lengthy process, potentially involving an interagency commission under the central bank. Entrepreneurs cited in the reporting say restrictions can remain in force for months, including after requested documents have been supplied.
Automation allows banks to review enormous volumes of transactions at speed. It is less able to understand why a firm’s activity has changed. A seasonal business, a new supplier or an exceptional contract can look suspicious when judged mainly against historical data and fixed thresholds. The burden then shifts to the company to explain its conduct after access has already been curtailed.
The difference between access in law and access in practice
A case involving the company X-Dzor illustrates the gap. Alfa-Bank regarded a transaction worth 13.7 million roubles as suspicious and cut the company’s remote-banking limits to 200,000 roubles a month for business expenses and 50,000 roubles for wages.
X-Dzor sought 7.2 million roubles in damages, arguing that the restrictions had caused contracts to fail. Russia’s Supreme Court rejected the claim, pointing to the company’s remaining ability to submit paper payment orders at bank branches.
The ruling preserved a formal distinction: the account had not been completely frozen if the company could still access its funds through a branch. Operationally, that distinction may offer little comfort. A firm with regular payments to suppliers, staff and public authorities cannot easily replace online banking with repeated visits, paper forms and supporting documents.
A delayed payment can hold up a delivery, trigger a contractual penalty or prompt a supplier to change its terms. Payroll and tax deadlines continue even while a bank reviews an account. A business facing a sudden cash-flow gap may have to seek expensive short-term credit, divert staff to document requests or risk losing commercial partners.
The limits in the X-Dzor case also show how quickly a restriction can become incompatible with normal operations. A monthly ceiling of 200,000 roubles for general business spending and 50,000 roubles for salaries may leave the company technically able to pay, but unable to meet its obligations at the required scale or speed.
Two refusals can change the banking relationship
The danger extends beyond a single disputed transfer. Under the applicable rules, a bank may acquire the right to terminate an account agreement unilaterally after two refusals to execute transactions. A contested automated alert can therefore become a problem for a company’s wider banking relationship and financial reputation.
That possibility creates a strong incentive to avoid payments that depart from familiar patterns, even when they are lawful. Some entrepreneurs may respond by holding more cash, using personal cards or looking for alternative payment channels. The complaint figures do not establish how widespread those practices are, but the mechanism is straightforward: if the formal banking route appears unpredictable, businesses may seek ways to reduce their dependence on it.
Such a shift would sit uneasily with the purpose of the controls. The rules are intended to make fraud, illicit transfers and the legalisation of criminal proceeds harder. Automated systems give banks a way to apply that scrutiny at scale. But when the systems produce false positives, the cost is borne by the company that must prove its legitimacy while payments are already restricted.
The first-half figures point to an expanding administrative problem rather than an isolated dispute. Thousands of complaints reached the regulator, while lawyers reported more court cases involving online banking restrictions. The unresolved question is how banks and regulators can make automated screening more precise without weakening the safeguards it was designed to provide.
For affected companies, the crucial issue is not whether their money remains visible on a statement. It is whether they can use it in time to pay the next supplier, meet payroll and settle taxes — without being sent back to the paper queue.
