The EU has just banned its citizens from holding accounts outside the European space!

By Dan Diaconu

No, there is no mistaking the wording.

It is European Directive 2024/1619, whose rules come into force in January 2027. It is an absolutely perverse way in which European citizens are prohibited from having accounts outside the EU. You have had signals regarding the use of European money for armament programs or even for supporting Ukraine. Here, now the big fight begins. The one with your money!

The statement in the introduction will be classified by EU "experts" as a "conspiracy theory" since the aforementioned directive is not one having as its subject the European citizen, but international banks. But let's understand how the procedure is introduced and how, in reality, all the weedy scaffolding cleverly hides precisely the prohibitions that will apply to the citizen.

As an idea, the aforementioned regulation specifies that non-EU banks will no longer be allowed to advertise, solicit customers or provide basic banking services (deposits, loans) for customers residing in the EU without having an authorized physical branch on EU territory (paragraph 5). Accounts opened before the deadline (January 2027) remain valid and can be used normally. It also specifies that an EU resident will still be able to open an account in a non-EU country if he initiates the process himself, without the bank in question having sent him offers or advertising (paragraph 6).

Apparently everything is in order.

Reinforced, in particular, by the last provision that I mentioned. This cannot be ignored even by the EU since it is an obligation deriving from membership in the World Trade Organization. The idea is that banks that do not comply with this regulation are liable to very large fines from the EU.

Now, from a practical point of view, there are two categories of banks, apart from the domestic ones, of course. The “proximity” banks, that is, those that are included in the same Western bucket: the American, Swiss, Singaporean, etc. In the other category are the banks that have little to do with the EU, that is, those from the Middle East, Africa, South America, Asia, etc. They do not care about the stupid regulations coming from here and are unlikely to enter the “EU radar”.

Where is a European client tempted to deposit his money to protect himself from the EU? Certainly not in Africa (even if, after the adoption of this directive, he might be safer there!). Without a doubt, he will be tempted to go to a Swiss, American, Singaporean, etc. bank. Theoretically, the legislation does not prevent it, only the EU says it in black and white. But, in practice, it will not be able to do it!

To understand why, we need to move to the other side, more precisely to the level of the risk and compliance departments of the banks involved. What are the risks? For example, if a small bank official, pressured by the target, sends a message to a European client like "Attention, starting tomorrow you have the opportunity to open a deposit with a promotional interest of 7%", that financial institution could be fined by the EU because it does not have a representative office within the EU, but it advertised a product to a European client. Even if private communication were to be abandoned, including at the level of electronic communication with clients, a separate layer should be implemented to avoid such messages.

These are the kind of dilemmas that make those departments make an assessment like "how many clients do we have from the EU and what are the prospects taking into account the new regulations?". Or, translated for the average person: "is it still worth keeping this distribution channel alive, given the risk / benefit ratio?" Such a question asked to someone from the legal department rarely receives a positive opinion. And when I say rarely, I am optimistic.

So what will be the consequence? Exactly the one the European Commission is looking for: you go to a Swiss bank thinking of keeping your money there because it is safer, and the clerk tells you in a tone as polite as possible that their bank does not work with clients from the EU area. And you look at it like a worm at a welding!

Do you understand the essence of the "mantle" blow?

The EU has beaten the saddle to make the mare understand.

Of course, a mare who spins hundreds of millions of euros, who has companies open all over the world, will not be hit by this problem.

No corrupt official of the European Commission will encounter problems in passing his money to various areas.
Why?
Because, unlike the poor people who really want to protect a few million euros from the European Commission's hunger, the others know where the loopholes are and, moreover, they have enough money to fit into other risk policies of the respective banks.
That is, where the bank official politely says "we do not work with clients from the EU", you should also understand the continuation, namely "unless they have amounts greater than EUR 10 million".

You may wonder why these decisions were made. Officially, the measure is justified by the "protection of European citizens" (I had no doubt!) and by the "need to tax the profits made from the money of European citizens". In reality, you have to be stupid to think that any of the banks that had some European clients would rush to open a representative office here. They would rather give up on EU clients, also for reasons of risk. So, surely, the initial aspirations were false.
Then?
The stake is the poor man's money.

You were just told: "The EU has money blocked in people's savings and pension schemes, money that could be used for armaments, the transition to green and helping Ukraine".

Apparently, everything is guaranteed!

https://3dmential.com How does this come about?

Simple: your money is taken from your pension fund (or long-term deposit) to be provided to Ukraine in the form of a good-yielding loan, guaranteed by the EU with Russia's immobilized money.

Why is this done?

Because the Belgians oppose confiscating Russia's money, for obvious reasons.

Thus, Ukraine is given your money, with a high yield (Zelensky is now signing for 1000% interest because he knows full well that he will not return anything!), guaranteed with the skin of the bear in the forest.

What happens in the end?

The fool pays.

It has always been like this, and it is now!