The OCC’s charter reality check: Why bunq and Wise got denied
The OCC’s rejection of national bank charter applications from Wise and bunq clearly shows the tough regulatory limits foreign fintechs face when trying to access US banking rails directly.
-
Nikita Alexander
- August 31, 2026
- 4 minutes
For years, the ambition of major fintech and cross-border payment providers has been: break free from reliance on sponsor banks and secure direct access to the balance sheet, payment rails, and central bank clearing through a national bank or trust charter. However, two recent decisions by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) serve as a reminder that regulatory appetite does not equal a free pass.
The OCC rejected the national bank charter application of Dutch neobank bunq and denied cross-border giant Wise its proposed national trust bank charter. These rejections arrived despite OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould reiterating that the agency is “open for business” after seeing 40 de novo applications over an 18-month span.
These two denial letters provide a detailed playbook on what federal regulators expect when evaluating non-bank financial institutions.
The Anatomy of Two Failures
The rejections of bunq and Wise illustrate two completely different operational failure modes during the chartering process.
1. bunq: Projections Out of Touch with Credit Realities
European neobank bunq, which serves over 20 million users across the EU sought a full-service national bank charter in New York to issue deposit accounts and unsecured credit cards under a subscription model. The OCC’s refusal under 12 C.F.R. § 5.20 centered on fundamental structural weaknesses:
- Inadequate & Unsupported Capital: bunq initially proposed $50 million in capital, later revising it to $58.3 million without providing verified source documentation or explaining how the funding would withstand loss projections.
- Misaligned Management Experience: Operating a successful EU digital deposit platform does not translate directly to US credit card underwriting. The OCC noted that bunq’s proposed leadership lacked experience in US unsecured credit, demonstrated little knowledge of US banking laws, and proposed a part-time executive model.
- Unrealistic Financial Assumptions: TheOCC found bunq’s marketing plan and credit loss allowances unrealistic given the intense competition in the US credit market, noting that bunq’s European profitability had only recently stabilized amid high interest rates.
2. Wise: Inherited Compliance Deficiencies
- Wise’s denial for a national trust bank charter in Austin had little to do with capital or market modeling; it was sunk by historical supervisory baggage.
- The Consent Order Trap: In July 2025, Wise US entered a $4.2 million multistate consent order with six state regulators to resolve severe Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (CFT) failures, including late Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) and weak transaction monitoring.
- Regulatory Sequence: The consent order was executed less than a month after Wise submitted its trust charter filing. The OCC ruled that it could not trust the proposed bank to operate a clean AML program when the parent entity was actively struggling with systemic AML compliance deficiencies.
Strategic Implications
| Operational Domain | The Common Pitfall | What Regulators Demand |
|---|---|---|
| Capitalization | Moving target figures; unverified source of funds. | Fully documented, binding capital commitments tied to stress-tested loss models. |
| Governance & C-Suite | Applying generic tech experience to specific financial products. | Executives with direct, US-market regulatory experience in the exact asset class being underwritten. |
| Compliance & AML | Applying for a federal charter while resolving state-level consent orders. | A clean supervisory record; remediation must be fully verified by regulators before filing. |
| Product Strategy | Porting international unit economics directly into the US financial market. | Tailored US market go-to-market strategies that account for local acquisition costs and loss dynamics. |
The Infrastructure Divide: Banking vs. Specialized Charters
The OCC’s rulings establish a firm boundary between balance-sheet banking and dedicated payment rails. While deposit-taking charters that touch the Deposit Insurance Fund trigger intense regulatory scrutiny over credit underwriting and loss buffers, direct infrastructure access via specialized trust charters remains open. Digital asset infrastructure providers like Circle—which successfully secured an OCC national trust charter by strictly isolating reserve management, custody, and settlement from consumer lending—demonstrate that federal charters are attainable when product scope directly matches risk controls. For cross-border payment firms expanding into the US, Washington’s message is clear: the regulatory door is open, but proving operational and compliance readiness remains non-negotiable.
