Consultation Opens On Bank Account Access
The Bermuda Monetary Authority has launched a consultation on proposed amendments that would ”introduce an obligation for institutions to provide basic bank accounts” to legal Bermuda residents.
The consultation paper — which us dated August 7, 2026 — states, “This Consultation Paper [CP] invites feedback on the proposed amendments to the Banks and Deposit Companies Act 1999 [BDCA or the Act]. The amendments seek to introduce an obligation for institutions to provide basic bank accounts to eligible individuals.
“To accomplish this objective, it is proposed that the BDCA be updated to include a requirement for the provision of basic bank accounts. Under Section 14[5][a] of the Act, institutions will be required to offer these types of accounts. The features and eligibility criteria for these accounts will be outlined in the accompanying Regulations.
“Industry and other stakeholders are invited to provide feedback on the proposals outlined in this paper and its attachments by emailing their comments to policy@bma.bm by the close of business on 22 September 2026.”
In providing background, the consultation paper said, “Access to basic bank accounts plays a crucial role in ensuring that all eligible individuals, regardless of their financial status, social conditions or geographic location, can participate in the formal financial system. These accounts serve as a vital foundation for managing everyday financial activities, such as making deposits, withdrawing cash, paying bills and transferring payments. By granting access to these essential banking services, basic bank accounts equip individuals with the tools needed for financial independence and effective money management.
“The need for basic bank accounts has become even more pressing in recent years due to the declining reliance on cash in many economies worldwide. Most employers now pay salaries directly into bank accounts, leaving those without one at a significant disadvantage. The inability to receive wages electronically creates serious challenges, including securing employment, as a bank account has become a critical requirement for many jobs. By providing access to basic bank accounts, these barriers can be removed, allowing individuals to participate more actively in the labour market.”
The document adds, “It is proposed to amend the Act to incorporate the provision of basic bank accounts and related products and services as a mandatory service for institutions licensed under section 14[5][a]. It is proposed to amend the Act to allow the Minister of Finance, acting upon the Authority’s advice, to issue Regulations outlining the product and service features of a basic bank account and the eligibility criteria for basic bank account holders.
“To qualify for a basic bank account, it is proposed that certain eligibility criteria apply as below:
- a. legal Bermuda residents only;
- b. limited to retail customers, business accounts are not permitted;
- c. be of legal age to enter into a bank account contract;
- d. customers will be limited to one basic bank account [either in their own name or joint names];
- e. customers must meet relevant Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing [AML/ATF] and Know Your Customer [KYC] requirements, and must not use the account for fraudulent purposes; and
- f. customers cannot apply for a basic bank account if they already have standard current and/or savings account[s].”
The consultation paper concludes by saying, “Please provide the Authority with your feedback on the presented proposals or any challenges you may envision with implementation by emailing your comments to policy@bma.bm by the close of business on 22 September 2026.”
The full Consultation Paper follows below [PDF here]:
“e. customers must meet relevant Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing [AML/ATF] and Know Your Customer [KYC] requirements…”
There is the issue. That is why certain members of the PLP Government had their bank accounts closed some time ago.
The “relevant Anti-Money Laundering, Anti-Terrorist Financing [AML/ATF] and Know Your Customer [KYC] requirements” are more onerous for a Politically Exposed Person. Let’s see if that changes for Bermudian Politically Exposed Persons as a result of this initiative.
If their banks accounts were closed, where does the government electronically deposit their checks? Into their spouse’s account? Are paper checks being issued?
I recall opening a bank account in Bermuda where the bank representative treated me like a criminal during the process before painfully and begrudgingly approving the opening of my account.
And yet, banks allow money get stolen from accounts by scammers and express no remorse.
“the bank representative treated me like a criminal during the process”
You must be a relative new-comer to Bermuda. Before the G7 imposed our strict AML/ATF/POCA regime on us, opening a bank account in Bermuda was as easy as opening a bank account in Vermont or Delaware. No identification was required. No local address was required.
As for banks allowing “money get stolen from accounts by scammers”, that would be a breach of contract for which the bank would be liable. Banks are required to take care of depositors’ money.
Moved to Bermuda in 2014.
I recall BPS saying not too long ago over $5 million had been scammed. And that is only what was reported. Looks like the banks dropped the ball big time.
Last time we had this discussion you said the banks were under no legal obligation to protect customer’s money. Now you say they do! You had an issue with my use of the phrase, fiduciary duty.
Banks have a obligation to take reasonable care of their depositor’s money, just as any contracting party has a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to abide by the contract. Banks have no positive duty to take steps to protect depositors.
The concept of a bank being a fiduciary of a depositor is a distinctly American concept that has no conterpart in Bermuda (or in the U.K.).
Make up your mind and drop the semantics.
“As for banks allowing “money get stolen from accounts by scammers”, that would be a breach of contract for which the bank would be liable. Banks are required to take care of depositors’ money.”
Not semantics, common sense. There is a distinction between taking reasonable care of another person’s money and taking proactive measures to protect another person’s money.
.
The distinction between defence and offence is not “semantic”.
Apples and oranges comparison. Make up your mind. First you say “As for banks allowing “money get stolen from accounts by scammers”, that would be a breach of contract for which the bank would be liable. Banks are required to take care of depositors’ money.”
Then you say “There is a distinction between taking reasonable care of another person’s money and taking proactive measures to protect another person’s money.”
My retort is, taking reasonable care of another person’s money REQUIRES taking proactive measures to protect that person’s money. Logically, it would be UNREASONIBLE not to take proactive measures in order to take care of depositors’ money. Would a bank leave its doors open after hours with no security guards, lights on, the money drawers full of cash and unlocked, and the vault door open?
With electronic transactions going unchecked, that is exactly what the banks are doing.
Why you argue over common sense makes no sense other than you like seeing your comments posted. Don’t bother replying.
“My retort is, taking reasonable care of another person’s money REQUIRES taking proactive measures to protect that person’s money.”
I accept that that is your retort. It does not represent the law.
Interesting….not sure if you can force a private business into doing something that may be risky and/or goes against international AML regulations. Retail banking is not something banks want to do at the best of times. It feels like the Government is deliberately taking this on. The BMA needs to remain neutral and not become the enforcer for Government.
“not sure if you can force a private business into doing something that may be risky”
The PLP government cannot force a business or a person to do something against their will. But no one is requiring banks to continue to provide banking services. If a bank wants a licence, then it must comply with the conditions imposed by the PLP Government and the Bermuda Monetary Authority.
It’s all a rackeet, welcome to the new age tech world!!! Lol well it all sucks
I absolutely understand that but this “feels” personal. My concern is the BMA going outside of their remit and getting involved in something that is not entirely neutral. Is the BMA getting involved in something (by enforcing this) that is more personal to the PLP (versus Bermuda in general)? Just asking !