Commonwealth Bank of Australia Has Decided to Cease Its Banking Relationship with You

CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 18:06
Last edited 22/09/2026 - 19:58 by 1 other user

Yesterday I started receiving emails from CBA that they would be closing my accounts. No previous email or notice or phone call.

I have been a customer with CBA for over 25 years starting as a student.

No KYC request was made to me via email or mail and suddenly I get e-mails that all my accounts will be cancelled.

Called KYC section and they said it wouldn't be that if I had failed to do one KYC for an account.

I don't do crypto, don't have international transactions coming in or out.

I have over 10 accounts that include credit cards which I always pay on time.
Trust account
SMSF account
Joint accounts
Business accounts
Personal account.
Aust Share trading account.- rarely used.
Loan account.

Below is the letter:
Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA) has decided to cease its banking relationship with you.
CBA is writing to inform you that following a review of your banking, CBA has decided on a risk-basis to cease its banking relationship with you in accordance with the terms and conditions relevant to your products https://www.commbank.com.au/important-info.html.

This will be implemented no earlier than 30 days from the date of this letter.

On or after the conclusion of this 30-day notice period, the accounts identified in this letter will be closed and/or restricted.

Please read this letter carefully as it explains how CBA will implement the account closures, and how this will affect your accounts.

*** and for my credit cards:
CBA has, in accordance with the Credit Card Conditions of Use, cancelled the credit card(s) (and the credit card numbers) associated with this/these credit card account(s).

Accordingly, you may no longer use any credit card (and credit card numbers) associated with these credit card account(s). Please destroy your credit cards and tell any additional card holder that these credit card account(s) have been cancelled.

You must continue to comply with your payment obligations under the Credit Card Conditions of Use. This includes the obligation to pay the minimum payment amount shown on each statement of your credit card account(s).
**

**Called the number they gave me and only option was to lodge a complaint and raise it, other wise I know they don't need to give any reason for doing so.

**At this point I am pretty livid but have remained calm and corteous with customer service on the phone as I know they are not the ones who did this.

The fact there is a loan account there and they expect to close all my accounts and for me to setup a direct debit so they can still bill me?

This is utter insanity that banks can do this without warning and reason. The amount of detriment and time it will take me if this is not resolved amounts to thousands of dollars of setting up new accounts and who knows what stupid record CBA will leave by closing my accounts.

Edit: putting summary here later. Minor corrections to personal info

Financial

Related Stores

Commonwealth Bank
Commonwealth Bank

Comments

Best
Search through all the comments in this post.
  • Benoffie on 15/09/2026 - 18:10

    If it's a legitimate debanking, straight to AFCA

    https://www.afca.org.au/

    Also, secure your money immediately. Do not wait for a Hail Mary

    • 40
    • CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 18:23

      Called them. They sounded pretty powerless. They said wait for CBA complaint to go through.

      Still, the fact I have to go through this without any contact from CBA beforehand feels orwellian at best.

      • 16
      • Benoffie on 15/09/2026 - 18:32

        It's a shit process and AFCA are wishy-washy at best but they aren't powerless. Dont let them kid you.

        The issue here will be the new KYC laws/requirements that triggered this and the banks right to determine who they do and dont do business with.

        If you can demonstrate that that you have completed openly all KYC requests and that there is nothing to suggest illegal activity, then the argument is - well, if CBA debank me on this basis, who will take me?

        • not advice, yada yada
        • 8
      • Onemoredeal on 15/09/2026 - 18:33

        Yeah AFCA has no power to overturn it , they can just review it against the banks processes

        • 1
      • Brianqpr on 16/09/2026 - 21:31

        The bank's terms and conditions likely allow it to close your accounts and not have to give you a reason. They'll be available online if you want to check.

        As a result there's nothing AFCA can really do. They can be a pain for the bank for a while and perhaps persuade them to pay you "non financial loss" for inconvenience but that's about it.

        Also AFCA can't get involved until CBA has responded to the complaint.

        • 0
        • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 22:39

          They responded without discussing or calling me. Simply sent me an email saying they will not overturn, then changed their wording to 'commercial reasons', rather than 'risk basis'
          Though I assume these are just all template they use willy nilly.

          So I wasn't able to present my case or question, which really voids the point of making a complaint so that someone can actually review what you have to say with what they have.

          • 1
    • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 15/09/2026 - 19:09

      AFCA will get you compensation but they have no way to get your accounts re-instated. De-banking is not illegal in Australia.

      • 5
      • cheekymonkey97 on 16/09/2026 - 09:51

        De-banking should 100% be illegal considering how much we are forced to rely on them.

        • 27
        • quick-dry on 16/09/2026 - 15:44

          agreed, or at minimum there must be a "bank of last resort" - maybe it doesn't offer the perks of retail banks, but given money is only sent from the govt direct to bank - you can't be left bankless. It has parallels in being made stateless.

          • 5
          • cheekymonkey97 on 16/09/2026 - 18:01

            @quick-dry: Hmm, I think you're onto something here. Maybe some type of government owned bank, we could call it Commonwealth something something Australia. Nah nevermind, that's a silly idea what was I thinking…

            • 24
            • MrTweek on 16/09/2026 - 21:41

              @cheekymonkey97: There are countries where every bank have to give everyone a very basic low-risk account if they apply.

              Having just an account that can't go negative and no loans/credit cards/trading account doesn't really pose any risk to the bank.

              • 0
      • Brianqpr on 16/09/2026 - 21:33

        Might get you compensation, and only because its cheaper than AFCA case fees for the bank.

        The bank might try to get it kicked out under AFCA rules. There's a rule that if no error was made AFCA can rule the complaint out.

        • 0
        • Alley Cat on 17/09/2026 - 17:50

          because its cheaper than AFCA case fees for the bank.

          Not really. There's a case on reddit about $0.01 dispute, the bank didn't budge, went the whole way.

          • 0
          • Brianqpr on 19/09/2026 - 10:57

            @Alley Cat: That's unusual and they must have wanted an outcome for a specific reason. The cost to the bank is about $10k for an AFCA determination win or lose. Less if its fast track complaint but that's a minority.

            For low value AFCA complaints its commercially sensible to just pay the complainant. Even the initial case management stage costs the bank around $3k so why would they bother spending that money plus staff time dealing with it and the AFCA information requests etc over maybe $100.

            • 0
          • tenpercent on 19/09/2026 - 11:07

            @Alley Cat: I'd suggest it depends on the KPIs and year to date performance of the managers within the bank whose KPIs are impacted by these AFCA cases. If it's been a poor year with lots of AFCA cases and few wins then they may be more reluctant to pursue it, but if its a brand new year and there's a young plucky manager wanting to make a name for him/herself by smashing KPIs out of the park, then buckle in.

            • 0
            • Alley Cat on 19/09/2026 - 12:19

              @tenpercent: That is very expensive KPI. See above linked case. Seems the bank has way too much power even in winning this $0.01 case. AFCA just folded when it’s inline with the bank’s t&cs, which does make sense because that’s part of the commercial contract I guess. But make no sense to not reverse the $0.01 interest on the principal that has been reversed. The lesson is we all need to start drafting t&cs for ourselves when we engage with businesses lol

              • 0
  • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 15/09/2026 - 18:59

    Very common, I have had this experience with both AMP Bank GO & Macquarie (lots have had it with Macquarie in particular).

    You can go to AFCA, they will usually grant you compensation (they have in both cases for me). There is no way to get your accounts re-open however as the banks have a commercial right to terminate the relationship.

    A lot of it stems from the laws in Australia, banks generally cannot work with you to verify information as this could count as "tipping you off" so you generally are not given a chance to provide evidence of not breaching the terms and conditions nor do they inform you which term/condition they are closing the account under.

    With my US bank accounts I have always been given the opportunity to submit bank statements to show validity of the funds and have my accounts re-instated, unfortunately the laws in Australia need to change as currently banks are unwilling to verify information with you due to the risk of getting in trouble under AUSTRAC laws.

    • 26
    • payton on 15/09/2026 - 19:11

      Is this possibly due to people receiving inward transfers from many people that aren't consistent with what was declared in the KYC as the main source of income (full time employment, for example), or large money transfers from overseas or people the bank has already flagged as suspicious.

      Or even someone who is routing largish amount of funds through their acct to someone else on regular basis.

      • 1
      • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 15/09/2026 - 19:15

        For Macquarie I think my trigger was using their marketplace to purchase a gift card. For AMP Bank GO, I believe it was sending funds to a brokerage to purchase US equities.

        Although I will never know for sure as they do not provide a specific reason.

        I think the laws definitely need reviewing as the approach seems to be once flagged, "guilty" with no opportunity to even prove yourself innocent. Banking is definitely an essential service these days, whether the government improves communication between banks so Bank A can verify your transactions at Bank B to fill in the gaps for where your money is coming from. Or maybe AFCA should have a mediation ability where you can present your case similar to how you are given an opportunity in court to tell your side of the story.

        • 9
        • CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 19:20

          Yes. This literally sounds like shoot first, ask questions never.

          • 4
          • tenpercent on 15/09/2026 - 20:35

            @CalmLemons: Asking questions, cross-checking, using human intelligence to verify, etc. costs time and money. Unless you're a HNWI, then it's cheaper and easier for them to let you go tell you to take a hike.

            • 3
    • CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 19:01

      Jesus for real? That part is insane. "banks generally cannot work with you to verify information as this could count as "tipping you off"

      • 0
      • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 15/09/2026 - 19:05

        Yes, the laws in Australia are quite strict. I don't think the law outright says "you cannot verify the information with the customer" specifically but banks are very worried to do so as asking such a question implies you are under investigation which can be seen by regulators as failing to comply with the laws not to tip someone off.

        For example if they sent an email saying "we need bank statements to prove your source of funds" it very clearly implies to the person they are under investigation which can be interpreted as the banks tipped them off.

        • 10
        • banana365 on 16/09/2026 - 11:38

          They could still do that at the end of their investigation. "We believe you're rather dodgy but now it's your chance to prove you're not." They miss out that second part altogether.

          • 0
  • brendanm on 15/09/2026 - 22:03

    How are people meant to avoid this in future if they aren't given a reason why?

    • 18
    • WoodYouLikeSomeCash on 15/09/2026 - 22:17

      That’s the key issue. I think the laws surrounding this need to be revisited, they seem to be incorrectly catching innocent people and not money laundering, etc as the original laws were intended.

      The people doing illegal things would know these laws and know what trips up a bank and simply structure their banking in a way that avoids these flags. The problem is, since these flags are indiscriminate and just assume you’re doing something illegal, everyday people now also need to structure their banking in a certain way to avoid accounts in the future being closed.

      The best way to avoid it is to look “low-risk” to the bank such as:

      • Always maintain a decent amount of funds in the account so it is not seen as a “pass through” account
      • Avoid constantly transferring large sums of money through your account, especially if it exceeds your income
      • Avoid using crypto, avoid transferring money to Wise/Revolut/Internationally on a regular basis
        etc.
      • Be careful transferring sums between your banks as the receiving bank only sees “Transfer from YOUR NAME” and lacks the ability to confirm your source of funds which can cause a flag (only the sender bank has the statement history showing it was earned from employment)

      I have seen some datapoints where people have had their transaction AND home loans closed by the bank. I do wonder if anyone has experienced this before and how long you have to refinance? What happens if you utilised the 5% deposit scheme, the value of your house has dropped and you cannot refinance?

      I think we need to classify banking as an essential service and revisit the laws around it.

      • 15
      • ProlapsedHeinous on 16/09/2026 - 02:31

        ive been passing through my wages for a while now through cba. i probably should just update my banking details with employer but at the same time if they closed my acocunt it'd be doing me a favour at this point.

        • 1
        • dominator293 on 16/09/2026 - 19:36

          @ProlapsedHeinous agree haha, i'm in the same situation with Westpac. I really should update my payroll, but keep westpac open just in case something is still pointing to it.

          • 0
      • kiitos on 18/09/2026 - 07:38

        Sounds like good advice, but there are legitimate reasons for these sort of activity, and it's concerning if it can be the sole basis for debanking.

        I transfer money regularly from a higher interest account at Bank 1 to a lower interest account at Bank 2 because that one is used to automatically pay off my monthly credit card balance with Bank 2

        Have recently received an irregular series of larger sums of money as part of an inheritance.

        It's worrying if that could cause account closure.

        • 1
    • Satchimo on 15/09/2026 - 22:34

      How are people meant to avoid this in future if they aren't given a reason why?

      To be fair, it doesn't really matter why they did it. Nobody has to give a reason for this, they don't even need to have a reason.

      And none of these guys will be saying anything they don't have to in case it can somehow get used against them.

      You know the US Miranda Rights?

      "You have the right to remain silent. Anything you do or say may be used as evidence against you in a court of law".

      No Miranda in Australia, but same principle.

      Admit nothing. Let the accusers prove their claims. Don't do their job for them and give them the evidence for them to use against you..

      They can't (generally) sue you for something you didn't say or do (negligence omission excepted or lawful order).

      • 0
      • Bargainitis on 15/09/2026 - 23:36

        there is definitely a Miranda in Australia.. in Sydney in fact.

        • -1
        • Satchimo on 16/09/2026 - 11:26

          Does she remain silent?

          • 2
        • tenpercent on 16/09/2026 - 11:30

          Miranda in Australia.. in Sydney in fact.

          Oh Frodo

          • 0
    • mrvaluepack on 17/09/2026 - 08:16

      Have accounts with other banks, dont put all your eggs in one basket.

      • 0
  • Maxxjet on 16/09/2026 - 08:57

    Not accusing or suggesting the OP of any wrong doing, and not to defend CBA or any bank ( I have loads of complaints against them) but given the spectrum of accounts OP has with CBA, it appears the bank would know almost all aspects of his financial affairs and they decided to proceed with the closure. The bank knows way more than anyone here, probably more than the OP him/herslef so logically it cannot be an arbitrary decision. Something made CBA extremely uncomfortable (right or wrong that is very subjective)

    We don't know OPs job, business, income etc etc … fortunately you should be able to get some sort of compensation via AFAC complaint channel (or CBA should compensate for you without asking AFCA). They don't want your business, why stick with them? There are many other much better banks, go to them. Hassles, of course, but what else can you do?

    • 15
    • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 16:19

      9 months ago we used to have 1.5m+ loans with them. Now we have 300k.

      A lot of the accounts we don't use, have small balances, as they're not good for business banking so we use other banks for that.

      I mainly use them for personal transactions.

      I assume someone in the office has just decided instead of calling me to close the redundant accounts, it's easier for them to just close everything.

      They haven't locked my accounts, and are closing in a few weeks. They have immediately cancelled my credit cards it seems which I assume is because they want me to pay it off.

      • 1
      • cecilcecil on 17/09/2026 - 13:58

        9 months ago we used to have 1.5m+ loans with them. Now we have 300k.

        yeah thatch not suss at all

        They probably cant verify the funding, but have suspicion its illegal

        • 3
      • Satchimo on 17/09/2026 - 08:11

        They have immediately cancelled my credit cards it seems which I assume is because they want me to pay it off.

        You have to pay it off, but they cancelled them so that you can't access any further credit with them. They're limiting their losses if you declare bankruptcy etc or don't want to be chasing small debts.

        I assume someone in the office has just decided instead of calling me to close the redundant accounts, it's easier for them to just close everything.

        Much easier. They don't have to listen to your rants and raves and demands to either resonators your accounts, be escalated to a manager or ask them to give you reasons etc and pass through the five stages of grief.

        The letter sets out their intentions in clear language so as it is easy to understand and at what date it will happen.

        • 1
  • Onemoredeal on 15/09/2026 - 18:10

    They can do it and do it all the time. It’s their right who they choose to do business with (rightly or wrongly). I’m not agreeing with them just confirming it’s normal practice

    • 13
    • Almost Banned on 16/09/2026 - 12:28

      I can't agree with that.
      Australia's big banks receive massive government support and protection - not least of which is deposit guarantees.
      That bloody well should come with some conditions - and not debanking people out of the blue for no good reason should be one of them.
      For most businesses, sure, choose your clients. But for massive monopolistic companies with huge government support - no.

      • 41
      • Onemoredeal on 16/09/2026 - 13:16

        You don’t have to agree with it.

        • 8
        • Almost Banned on 16/09/2026 - 14:09

          You have clearly never heard of a community service obligation

          • 1
          • Onemoredeal on 16/09/2026 - 15:52

            @Almost Banned: You’re confusing me with standing up for the bank, which I’m not, I’m saying simply they have a term and condition that says they can stop doing business with you and they apply it , rightly or wrongly. They need the condition so they can unbank horrible humans , it has to exist in some form. I can’t talk to the OPs situation but it sounds terrible

            • 7
            • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 19:32

              @Onemoredeal: On this note I am one of the much nicer humans. I have never yelled at staff and throughout my interactions with the KYC team, 1800 006 763 the "unsolicited" department here I have been extremely courteous and had a good laugh with a few of the guys because I know it wasn't their team that made the decision and they are just scape goats.

              • 2
              • Onemoredeal on 16/09/2026 - 19:58

                @CalmLemons: I’m sorry this happened to you mate I’m not judging you, I’m just aware of the process, and the confidentiality of it .

                • 3
            • Almost Banned on 16/09/2026 - 16:06

              @Onemoredeal: Why exactly do they 'need the condition'.
              How horrible a human do you have to be to not be entitled to use a bank - especially in a world where banking is essentially necessary to survive - and who gets to decide on who is that horrible?
              It sounds like a bad idea all around.

              • -3
              • gromit on 17/09/2026 - 09:15

                @Almost Banned: Laundering money, transferring money to banned organisations or groups, transferring money through to or from sanctioned countries or businesses or perhaps just a person that falls for every scam that comes along and then tries to blame the bank costing them a fortune. There are loads of reasons that can and should trigger them refusing to do business with you. Who decides, well the government through Money laundering laws, sanctions and banking regulations, outside of that their legal team based on risk or cost.

                • 8
                • Almost Banned on 17/09/2026 - 10:45

                  @gromit: Yes - those all involve CRIMES (other than the last one - being dumb).
                  Financial crimes/fraud might be a legitimate basis for debanking - are you claiming that is what happened here?

                  • -7
                  • gromit on 17/09/2026 - 11:12

                    @Almost Banned: you asked why they needed the condition, I am not claiming anything, not even the OP knows the reason, banks F up all the time as does government. But you asked what determines a horrible person in the banks eyes and who gets to decide and why it needs to exist at all.

                    • 4
            • trapper on 17/09/2026 - 09:21

              @Onemoredeal:

              They need the condition so they can unbank horrible humans

              So murderers, rapists and pedophiles get to have bank accounts… but it's the 'horrible humans' who've committed no crime that need to be debanked lol

              • -8
              • Onemoredeal on 17/09/2026 - 09:24

                @trapper: I didn’t say that either , and how do you know they don’t unbank the people you mentioned. And to be honest, if the keyboard warriors on social media found out that they did bank someone terrible I’m sure they would make a song and dance about it like they do about everything else. I don’t work for the bank and I’m not standing up for them like I’ve said many times I’m just pointing out they have terms saying they are able to do it and do so.

                • 2
              • Typical16-bitEnjoyer on 18/09/2026 - 12:45

                @trapper: Holy Straw man Batman

                • 2
      • Brianqpr on 16/09/2026 - 21:34

        The terms and conditions state they can close accounts at any time without a reason. You accept the terms and conditions when you open an account. It really begins and ends there.

        • -3
        • Brianqpr on 19/09/2026 - 10:52

          The negs are interesting for what is a factual statement (I deal with AFCA complaints all the time in my job).

          • 0
    • bamzero on 16/09/2026 - 16:15

      Their lack of transparency is bullshit. It's not just a simple matter of declining a transaction. OP has a lot tied up with them, they need to be more accountable or we are all f$!@ed when everything is completely online and they have 100% of the power (probably all f$!@ed at that stage anyway)

      • 3
      • Brianqpr on 19/09/2026 - 10:53

        Tha bank will have a reason but they don't have to disclose that. It sucks if you've done nothing dodgy or wrong but its how it is.

        No business, bank or otherwise, is under any obligation to accept you as a customer.

        • 0
    • surg3on on 18/09/2026 - 19:39

      While its their right its also their obligation. OP has most probably triggered AML red flags. They arent allowed to tell OP he has triggered the AML red flags but this is the #1 reason you get that many accounts closed.

      https://www.austrac.gov.au/about-us/legislation/amlctf-rules

      • 1
    • raiseyoursteaks on 17/09/2026 - 07:04

      But not your right when you withdraw your own cash

      • 0
  • try2bhelpful on 15/09/2026 - 18:24

    Go back to CBA and ask them to highlight exactly what is the problem. They will probably refuse to tell you but at least you have tried to fix it before taking it to AFCA. Then lodge the complaint with AFCA. Dealing with these soulless organisations is stressful. I can understand trying to fix things like money laundering but they hide behind secrecy and wave vague T&Cs at you.

    Best of luck.

    • 13
    • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 19:13

      The complaints person came back, without even asking my situation ……wait, let me rest that, I
      I lodged the brief complaint the staff member took thinking they (complaints) would go on to discuss with me options but no they simply said we had a look and no we stand by our decision - without letting me shed light on whatever they are concerned about.

      And yes they simply dumped the t's and ,'s on me.

      In an age where we rely on digital money, especially with a large bank such as this, they should have obligations to sort things out with customers first instead of saying they are stuck in a hard place with aml laws or 'commerial' decisions

      When you are literally the face of banking in Australia there needs to be more accountability in how you deal with customers especially as banking in itself is a common right.

      It's like going to prison, because people suspect you look like a criminal.

      • 3
      • Satchimo on 17/09/2026 - 14:02

        especially as banking in itself is a common right.

        Banks and banking are not a protected right in Australia, common or otherwise.

        • 0
      • Ash-Say on 20/09/2026 - 05:12

        Male a post on Linkedin explaining how CBA is going to ruin your life and tag their Senior Executives, APRA, AUSTRAC and ASIC.

        Call out their unfair treatment and decision and how it is going to ruin your life resulting in significant stress and financal loss. Keep it to factual position.

        Make sure you are innoncent if you are going down this path!

        • 0
        • Satchimo on 20/09/2026 - 06:42

          keep it to factual position

          "It is going to ruin my life".

          • 1
    • surg3on on 18/09/2026 - 19:40

      They arent allowed to tell him if its an AML issue

      • 0
  • ZDawg on 15/09/2026 - 21:43

    ACFA is going to rule in favour of the bank and they cannot compel the bank to tell you why either. The bank is not required to provide you a reason why nor give you a right of reply.

    You can have a read through 4 recent determinations by ACFA for account closure by CBA that all rule in favour of the bank:
    https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?…
    https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?…
    https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?…
    https://my.afca.org.au/searchpublisheddecisions/kb-article/?…

    You should just accept the bank has debanked you and move on. There are 60 odd other banks out there for you to move your account too.

    • 12
    • CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 23:25

      Thanks.

      https://www.cbp.com.au/insights/publications/why-was-i-de-ba…

      But anyone who agrees with such terrible actions has got to be kidding themselves that behaviour like this is acceptable.

      • 3
      • try2bhelpful on 16/09/2026 - 08:07

        Completely agree. They shiuld have to give a reason.

        It is very hard for anyone who has retired to get a credit card. They turn you down and refuse to explain why. It is age discrimination but the Government doesn't care.

        • 4
    • try2bhelpful on 15/09/2026 - 22:24

      Thanks for the links.

      • 0
  • tenpercent on 15/09/2026 - 18:16

    Have you shared any 'controversial' or non- politically correct or non- mainstream opinions on social media using accounts that could be easily linked to your real identity?

    • 6
    • JIMB0 on 15/09/2026 - 23:27

      Just look at their post history.

      • 5
    • CalmLemons on 15/09/2026 - 18:22

      No.

      • 1
      • Almost Banned on 16/09/2026 - 12:28

        OF or other 'adult' activity?
        Not wanting to pry - but I've heard this used as a basis occassionally.

        • 0
        • Technics on 16/09/2026 - 14:08

          That sounds really rough on the OF content creators after their tireless work. The least you could do is to help out by making a donation or two.

          • 2
    • bargaino on 15/09/2026 - 18:35

      On what basis do you ask that? Any reason to think this is not KYC?

      • 1
      • tenpercent on 15/09/2026 - 18:36

        Any reason to think this is not KYC?

        Yes. From the OP:

        No KYC request was made to me via email or mail and suddenly I get e-mails that all my accounts will be cancelled.

        Called KYC section and they said it wouldn't be that if I had failed to do one KYC for an account.

        • 2
        • bargaino on 15/09/2026 - 18:39

          ok, my bad. Any reason to think banks are filtering customers on politics? Any precedent for what you are suggesting? I'm not trying to be adversarial, I know people have lost jobs for expressing opinions.

          • 1
          • Onemoredeal on 15/09/2026 - 20:07

            @bargaino: They definitely won’t bank someone that may harm their reputation in whatever way they see fit. It’s no different to banks choosing not to fund an unpopular mining proposal even if it may be profitable (like Adani)

            • 1
            • FireRunner on 15/09/2026 - 20:55

              @Onemoredeal: Obviously a big contract with a major company is not the same as Joe shmo saying controversial stuff on Facebook. Unless OP is a famous public figure, the bank isnt going to care what you do/say on your social media account. Even then, it would somehow need to link them to said person for them to consider cutting ties to protect their own image.

              • 3
              • Onemoredeal on 15/09/2026 - 21:03

                @FireRunner: Exactly they have to link them and they do unbank individuals they consider a reputational risk. I didn’t say that had anything to do with the OP

                • 0
          • R4 on 16/09/2026 - 09:00

            @bargaino: That's definitely happened in the UK and Ireland but never heard about it going on here

            • 1
            • BestTechAdvisor on 17/09/2026 - 09:07

              @R4: It also happened in Canada. Also not aware of it happening here but I'm sure it would.

              If cashless payments are necessary or mandated then banking should be a civic right. If the Government doesn't want to force privately owned banks to comply then the Government should offer a publicly owned bank for the commonwealth of Australians. We could call it the "Commonwealth Bank of Australia".

              • 2
              • R4 on 17/09/2026 - 13:51

                @BestTechAdvisor: Agree. I think there's going to be legislation needed if we go down that route but I can't see cash ever being scrapped but who knows? The government has made moves against cash in the past but they never got up.

                • 0
  • capslock on 16/09/2026 - 12:41

    If you are honest and think hard enough, you can probably figure out what it is about you or your transaction history that CBA finds it doesn't want to be associated with. It doesn't really matter though because whatever it is, it is already done. Even if you claim ignorance or promise not to repeat it, CBA can never be sure of that.

    • 6
    • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 16:27

      We are pinning it down to we get a lot of money in the family trust that then goes out to other banks to pay for home loans there.

      So large amounts coming in from our businesses, at other banks, then transfer out to other banks.

      But literally transactions from legitimate companies but guess CBA cannot see that and can't be fked calling me about it at all.

      CBA pissy they aren't getting a cut anymore.

      • 1
      • mousie on 16/09/2026 - 18:35

        Well that information would have been better upfront in the post

        • 5
        • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 18:43

          That's not the reason. They don't disclose. However because it's a trust account it's pretty normal for such transactions, especially since cba handled half the settlements.

          • 1
          • try2bhelpful on 16/09/2026 - 19:48

            @CalmLemons: Do you really know that isn’t the reason? Large amounts of money in and out could ring alarm bells. Just something to consider when you setup with the next bank.

            • 6
  • askbargain on 15/09/2026 - 22:47

    Is this an ad for Bitcoin?

    • 5
    • ProlapsedHeinous on 16/09/2026 - 02:34

      to be fair, if you have no need for the legacy payment rails in and out back to fiat, you are better off using it. only exception might be if you're a ultra high net worth bitcoiner, theres probably more leeway between the two systems

      • 0
    • ozbjunkie on 16/09/2026 - 09:30

      I was worried our friend was bringing international court proceedings against our "allies"

      • 0
  • Lupin the 3rd on 16/09/2026 - 09:51

    Never leave all your eggs in one basket

    • 5
    • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 19:20

      That's why our businesses bank with other banks.

      • 0
  • S2 on 16/09/2026 - 09:57

    CBA advertise an initiative where they support survivors of financial abuse even if they don't want with Commbank. You seem to be a victim of financial abuse in this case and you're surviving it. Perhaps contact CBA's next chapter for support?

    • 5
  • doctordv8 on 16/09/2026 - 08:48

    Quite unfortunate for you to be in this position, regardless of why.

    I started with CBA like millions of school kids 5o+ years ago. Soon learnt they were money making machines, not people.

    Biggest bank, but as usual often has the worst services.

    There are many and better banking options out there, and now is a good time to have 2 brands.
    If one shuts you out ie without warning, you can still carry on.
    At least here you have 30 days.

    Fight yes, find out why to proctect yourself in the future.
    But even if you can stay, move elsewhere anyhow.

    • 4
  • Dejaar on 16/09/2026 - 09:29

    I decided to cease my banking relationship with CBA about 25yrs ago when they began charging account keeping fees for me to have my house deposit savings with them. I went to the Police Bank simple free banking. They are excellent, on top of security and have lovely staff on the occasions I need to ph.
    Ditch the big 4.

    • 4
  • HelpMeiCantSee on 16/09/2026 - 10:19

    Same thing happened to me 25+ years ago. They flatly refused to give me any reason for it, and pretty much wouldn’t even speak to me at all. When I called, confirmed my details, they’d just say we aren’t doing business with you anymore, goodbye and would hang up on me. I had to go via AFCA and lawyers to find out that there had been a “fraudulent transfer” into my account (NFI how anyone had my details).

    Zero recourse, and 20 years on refinancing my wife’s loan with cba to another bank took forever (almost a year!) (and multiple smacks from the afca) because of this. It’s wrong as hell, but sadly there is no recourse at all, and it’s permanent. It seems as though there are processes (or people) put in place to deliberately make any interaction infinitely more difficult.

    FWIW, I had an impeccable credit score (and still do). And yes, I too had a loan with them at the time which they conveniently were happy to keep open and do business with. It’s all very odd. I do accept they can do business with whoever they’d like- just as I can, and I don’t miss them one bit.

    • 4
    • Skinnerr on 16/09/2026 - 11:27

      And yes, I too had a loan with them at the time which they conveniently were happy to keep open and do business with.

      What a bullshit, fraudulent double standard. Just sounds like bored, middle mismanagement skullduggery from useless 'managers' desperate to justify their existence in their crusade.

      • 3
    • CalmLemons on 16/09/2026 - 16:23

      So they closed your transaction accounts but kept your loan account open, they just arranged to debit from another bank?

      • 0
      • HelpMeiCantSee on 21/09/2026 - 14:55

        Exactly correct. I kept paying that particular loan off for 3 more years, but couldn’t check the balance/log in via commbank. The day I paid it off and was free of them was wonderful.

        Wild stuff.

        • 0
Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join