Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

Banks agreed to limit sole proprietors in transfers — but only those who cannot prove income

On May 14, NABU and the Financial Intelligence Unit signed an updated memorandum: newly created and "dormant" individual entrepreneurs will receive transfer limits starting from August 2025. The document is voluntary, with no enforcement mechanism in place.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 14, 2026 · 2 min read

Banks agreed to limit sole proprietors in transfers — but only those who cannot prove income
Фото: Depositphotos

The National Association of Banks of Ukraine and the Association of Ukrainian Banks signed on May 14 an updated version of the memorandum on transparency of the payment services market. This is not a law or an NBU resolution — banks are taking on obligations voluntarily. The original document came into effect in February 2025 and has already limited transfers by individuals without confirmed income to 50–100 thousand UAH per month. Now the effect of the limits extends to sole proprietors (FOP).

Who will be affected and when

The new rules apply to two types of entrepreneurs: newly created FOPs (up to 6–12 months of existence depending on the internal rules of a particular bank) and "dormant" ones — those who resume activity after a long break. Changes are being introduced in two stages.

  • August 2025 — first threshold: Group 1 FOPs — up to 600 thousand UAH per month, Groups 2 and 3 FOPs — up to 3 million UAH per month.
  • November 2025 — second threshold: Group 1 FOPs — up to 400 thousand UAH, Groups 2 and 3 FOPs — up to 1 million UAH per month.
  • For legal entities of an analogous category, the limit in November will be up to 2 million UAH per month.

These restrictions will apply only to those who do not provide the bank with documentary proof of income — for example, a single tax declaration. Documents can be submitted and the limit increased at any time.

Declaration ≠ obligation

The memorandum is an industry agreement, not a regulatory act. Participating banks commit to implementing automated transaction monitoring, enhanced customer verification, and information exchange about suspicious clients among themselves. However, the document does not provide for any external arbiter to record violations of the memorandum terms.

"If any bank fails to conduct proper financial monitoring, it may in the future face NBU penalty sanctions, or even license revocation"

lawyer Lankin, UNIAN

That is, the only real deterrent is the NBU, which has the right to inspect banks even without a memorandum. The document itself contains no sanctions for non-compliance.

Why exactly FOPs

According to representatives of the associations, the purpose of the changes is to counter tax minimization schemes and "dropping": one-day entrepreneurs or previously inactive FOPs are used to transit funds without a fiscal trail. As Interfax-Ukraine reports, the concept of a "new" entrepreneur in accordance with NBU Resolution No. 65 may cover 6 to 12 months of existence — meaning banks will have some freedom of interpretation.

An important nuance: the limits do not apply to FOPs with confirmed income. An entrepreneur with declared income corresponding to turnover will not automatically fall under the restrictions.

If banks do not form a unified technical standard for exchanging data about suspicious clients by August, the memorandum risks remaining a set of good intentions with different interpretations at each individual bank.

Related

Latest

Business

EU Against Google: Why the Latest Fine Could Change More Than Previous Ones

# European Regulators Target Google Again — This Time Over Digital Markets Act Violations. What's Behind the Accusations and Why It Matters Beyond the Corporation European regulators have renewed their scrutiny of Google, this time focusing on alleged violations of the Digital Markets Act. The charges underscore Brussels' increasingly aggressive stance on big tech monopolies and what officials say are anticompetitive practices. The accusations center on how Google leverages its dominance across multiple digital services — from search to advertising to mobile platforms — to disadvantage competitors. Regulators claim the company is using its market power in ways that stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The case carries significance far beyond Google itself. It signals how the EU is attempting to enforce its landmark Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to curb the gatekeeping power of tech giants. A potential penalty could set precedent for how other large technology companies face similar scrutiny. For consumers and smaller tech firms, the outcome could reshape the digital landscape by creating more room for competition. For Google, fines and operational restrictions could fundamentally alter its business model in Europe, the world's most stringent regulatory market. The case also reflects a broader geopolitical divide, with the EU pursuing a regulatory approach that contrasts sharply with the lighter-touch oversight favored in the United States.

May 26, 2026