Tuesday, May 26, 2026
Today's Edition

EveryNews

Stories that matter, signal over noise

Finances

UniCredit spent three years maneuvering between sanctions and nationalization threat — and finally found a buyer from the UAE

Italian bank sells most of its Russian business to an investor from the United Arab Emirates and will record losses of up to 3.3 billion euros — but will retain a foothold for international payments needed by European clients.

Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

By Tetiana Suchkova-Ladik

May 7, 2026 · 2 min read

UniCredit spent three years maneuvering between sanctions and nationalization threat — and finally found a buyer from the UAE
Фото: unicreditbank.ru

For three years, UniCredit remained one of the few major Western banks in Russia — and for three years, CEO Andrea Orcel publicly explained why exiting was not as simple as it seemed. The deal announced this week is an answer to that question: incomplete, but real.

What exactly was agreed

UniCredit signed a non-binding term sheet with a "known private investor" from the UAE — according to Bloomberg, this is a consortium of Mada Capital and Asas Capital companies with the participation of the Inweasta group. Under the agreement, the Russian subsidiary AT "UniCredit Bank" will be divided: international payments and corporate client services for non-residents will remain under the control of the parent group, the rest of the business will go to the buyer.

The deal will impact financial results: according to MarketScreener citing Alliance News, the bank expects losses of 3 to 3.3 billion euros. However, UniCredit insists that this will not affect plans for shareholder payouts or long-term profit targets.

Why exiting was so difficult

Orcel repeatedly spoke about the trap the bank found itself in. On one hand — pressure from ECB regulators and sanctions compliance requirements, which he called "galactic efforts." On the other — threats from Moscow.

"Russia is waiting for a mistake to have grounds for [nationalization]"

— Andrea Orcel, CEO of UniCredit, at the ECB banking supervision forum

According to him, full compliance with sanctions requires enormous resources, and no one can be completely certain of one hundred percent compliance. A mistake could cost the bank 3.8 billion euros in capital — that is the estimated value of the Russian subsidiary.

The UAE buyer: practical logic

That the buyer turned out to be a UAE-based structure rather than a Russian or Western one is no coincidence. The Emirates have de facto become a transit hub between sanctioned and non-sanctioned economies: both Russian capital and Western jurisdictions are active here. For UniCredit, this solution allows it to avoid direct transfer of business under Russian control — which could have complicated relations with EU regulators.

At the same time, the deal remains non-binding: the term sheet is only a framework agreement, the final contract has not yet been signed. The deal is expected to close in 2027 — taking into account the need to obtain approval from regulators in several jurisdictions.

What remains open

UniCredit is not alone: Austrian Raiffeisen still maintains a significant presence in Russia and is also under pressure from the ECB to exit. A precedent of selling the "non-resident residue" through a UAE structure could become a model for it as well.

But the key question is practical: if EU or US regulators decide that maintaining even a minimal "payment window" in Russia violates the spirit of sanctions — UniCredit's scheme will collapse before 2027. It is this decision that will determine whether this deal becomes an example of managed exit or another postponement.

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