Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

"Oschadbank doesn't want to, NBU is trying: who financial inclusion banks are really being created for"

The NBU published a draft resolution on requirements for a limited banking license. Behind the document stands a simple problem: ordinary banks do not enter frontline areas and do not lend to farmers — even state-owned ones.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 22, 2026 · 2 min read

"Oschadbank doesn't want to, NBU is trying: who financial inclusion banks are really being created for"
Фото: НБУ

The Verkhovna Rada adopted a financial inclusion law on June 3, 2025 — with 260 votes against a minimum of 226. It was published on December 25. Now the NBU is preparing the regulatory framework: a draft resolution with procedures and requirements for obtaining a limited banking license. It will take effect on June 26, 2026 — after public consultation.

Why a regular license doesn't work

The minimum charter capital for a regular bank is 200 million hryvnias (the Council lowered the bar from 500 million). For most postal operators, cooperatives, or regional financial institutions that could theoretically serve small communities, this is an unaffordable amount. This is why the NBU began developing the concept of a "financial inclusion operator" with relaxed requirements back in 2024.

NBU Governor Andriy Pyshnyi explained the logic to Forbes during the discussion phase: the focus is primarily on frontline and de-occupied territories where financial infrastructure is virtually non-existent. As one of the state managers involved in developing the concept noted,

"This is essentially about loans for farms, because other players don't want to enter this niche, even Oschadbank."

state manager involved in developing the BFI concept, Forbes

What a financial inclusion bank can — and cannot — do

Law No. 4465-IX defines BFI as a separate type of bank with a limited license. Key restrictions discussed during development:

  • No foreign exchange operations — currency trading is prohibited to avoid speculation;
  • Loans — only for SMEs: micro, small and medium businesses, farmers, and amalgamated territorial communities;
  • Services for individuals, businesses, public organizations and local authorities — directly provided for by law.

At the same time, the NBU insists: investor requirements are the same as for regular banks. As the regulator emphasized, "the financial stability of an institution with such social status cannot be undermined." In other words, a "simplified" license is not synonymous with reduced oversight.

Where the delay is

More than six months passed between the law's adoption in June and its publication — the document was only signed on December 25, 2025. Interfax-Ukraine requested information from the NBU about the reasons for the presidential delay. The regulator responded that it is interested in the fastest possible entry into force, but does not know the reasons for the delay.

The first applications for a BFI license can be submitted in summer 2026. The NBU is simultaneously preparing separate measures to expand the physical presence of financial institutions — since, as the regulator itself acknowledges, financial inclusion is not limited to a new type of bank.

A practical question that remains unanswered: if even Oschadbank refused to operate in frontline areas due to risks, will private investors be found willing to meet the same capital requirements — but with a smaller market and greater danger?

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