Bradesco highlights its attachment to anti-money laundering policies in Brazil. The ABCB appealed the decision of the Administrative Council of Economic Defense.

It was reported that the Brazilian bank Bradesco refuses an agreement with exchange houses, following the decision of the Administrative Council of Economic Defense (CADE) in the case of the closing of the bank accounts of these cryptocurrency exchange companies.

In early January, the banking institution rejected a statement from the Brazilian Association of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain (ABCB) and requested CADE’s mediation to reach an agreement. The objective of this agreement would be to stop the closing of accounts between Brazilian banks and exchange houses in the South American country.

In its appeal, filed at the end of December, the ABCB argued that CADE’s ruling was full of “darkness”, “contradictions” and “omissions.” Bradesco’s response establishes a defense of CADE, assuring that such accusations are not justified.

Additionally, Bradesco explained that the position of the Brazilian Association of Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain regarding the regulation of the sector “is not consistent” with CADE’s vision in this respect.

Besides, the bank argued to maintain concerns regarding the policies of exchange houses against money laundering. This coincides with CADE’s position in its recent ruling. In that statement, the regulatory body emphatically dismissed the ABCB’s lawsuit for the closing of bank accounts.

Case Closure

CADE’s statement dates from December 26th and establishes the closing of the case. The agency considered that the banks that closed cryptocurrency exchange accounts did not act unfairly. According to CADE’s investigation, “there is no evidence of antitrust crimes as a result of the rejection of some banks to establish contracts with certain cryptocurrency exchange houses.”

The agency also noted in its ruling that the archiving of the investigation “does not have the power to validate future behavior regarding checking accounts and other services related to cryptocurrencies” by banks. In other words, from its decision, it was closed to future mediation.

The decision of the regulatory body contradicted a report by the former president of CADE, Paulo Furquim de Azevedo, according to which there were enough elements to consider that the banks had incurred “illegal antitrust” in their action against the exchange houses.

Previously, ABCB had sued six banks for practices that restricted the market for cryptocurrency exchange platforms. Faced with this complaint, CADE opened the investigation, which finally closed at the end of last year after postponing the decision.

Until now, the only one of those banks to express its opinion has been Bradesco. The others involved in the investigation were the Bank of Brazil, Itaú Unibanco, Santander Brasil, Banco Inter, and Sicredi.

Another Request Dismissed

In the same tone as CADE, the Court of Justice of São Paulo dismissed an appeal filed by the exchange house Mercado Bitcoin after the closing of accounts that it maintained in the Bank of Brazil.

The aforementioned court justified its decision because the banking institution had notified the closure 30 days in advance and had not committed any legal abuses. Additionally, the judicial body considered that the Bank of Brazil did not engage in practices that threaten free competition in its actions against Bitcoin Market.

By Alexander Salazar


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here