ARTICLE
23 August 2026

OCC Denies Fintech’s National Bank Charter Application

SM
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP

Contributor

Businesses turn to Sheppard to deliver sophisticated counsel to help clients move ahead. With more than 1,200 lawyers located in 16 offices worldwide, our client-centered approach is grounded in nearly a century of building enduring relationships on trust and collaboration. Our broad and diversified practices serve global clients—from startups to Fortune 500 companies—at every stage of the business cycle, including high-stakes litigation, complex transactions, sophisticated financings and regulatory issues. With leading edge technologies and innovation behind our team, we pride ourselves on being a strategic partner to our clients.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency denied a Dutch fintech's application to establish a national bank in New York, citing insufficient capital support, management experience gaps, and unsupported profitability assumptions. This decision highlights the rigorous standards fintechs must meet when seeking national bank charters, including demonstrating adequate capital sources...
United States Finance and Banking
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP are most popular:
  • within Strategy and Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)

On August 4, the OCC denied a Dutch fintech’s application to establish a new national bank in New York, concluding that the application presented significant supervisory and compliance concerns. The proposed bank planned to offer deposit accounts and unsecured credit cards through a subscription-based model for personal and business customers.

The OCC evaluated the application under its national bank chartering regulations, including whether the proposed institution had sufficient capital, competent management, a viable path to profitability, and the ability to operate safely and soundly. Specifically, the OCC cited:

  • Insufficient support for proposed capital. The applicant initially proposed $50 million in capital and later increased that amount to $58.3 million, but the OCC found that the application did not adequately establish the source and availability of the capital or demonstrate that it would support the proposed bank’s risk profile and projected business volume.
  • Management and board experience gaps. The OCC found that proposed management and directors lacked sufficient experience with unsecured credit cards, the bank’s principal lending product, and had limited familiarity with U.S. national banking laws and regulations.
  • Unsupported profitability assumptions. The OCC concluded that the proposed delinquency rates, allowance for credit losses, marketing expenses, and other financial projections did not sufficiently support the bank’s ability to achieve and maintain profitability.
  • Safety-and-soundness concerns. The OCC determined that weaknesses in the business plan, financial projections, management experience, and risk-management assumptions prevented the applicant from demonstrating that the proposed bank could operate safely and soundly.

The OCC also concluded that the application presented risk to the Deposit Insurance Fund and raised concerns regarding management transparency. The denial does not prevent the fintech from submitting a new charter application, and the decision may be appealed to the OCC’s Ombudsman.

Putting It Into Practice: The decision provides an important counterpoint to the growing interest among fintechs in obtaining or acquiring national bank charters. Although national bank charters can offer fintechs a path toward operating within a unified federal regulatory framework, the denial shows that applicants must substantiate their capital plans, management capabilities, credit-risk assumptions, and financial projections. Fintechs considering a national bank charter should assess these areas early in the application process and ensure that their business plans are tailored to the risks and competitive conditions of the U.S. banking market.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More