The Dutch Public Prosecution Service (OM) decided in April 2025 to prosecute Rabobank under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft). It alleges that from October 2016 the bank fell short on customer due diligence and on reporting unusual transactions. Unlike ING and ABN AMRO, Rabobank did not settle. In March 2026, the Amsterdam District Court rejected the bank’s complaint against a seizure of client files. No trial date has been published.
Latest development Mar 24, 2026
On March 24, 2026, the economic chamber of the Amsterdam District Court rejected Rabobank’s complaint against the seizure of compliance files of 29 clients and other records. The court held that the seizure was reasonably necessary for the investigation and that the OM had not promised to limit the case to 2016 to 2021. The bank could appeal in cassation to the Supreme Court.
Why it matters
If it goes to trial, the case will put a Dutch bank’s alleged anti-money-laundering failures before a criminal court rather than settle them, as ING and ABN AMRO did. It also tests how far prosecutors can widen a corporate investigation after announcing charges.
Background
Rabobank, the Dutch cooperative bank based in Utrecht, has been under criminal investigation for possible breaches of the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act (Wwft). The Public Prosecution Service (OM) says the investigation followed a report from De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB). According to Banken.nl, the matter became a criminal case in 2022, with Rabobank as a suspect, after earlier supervisory action over its anti-money-laundering controls.
On April 9, 2025, the OM announced that it had decided to summon Rabobank to court. It alleges that for years the bank fell short in customer due diligence and in reporting unusual transactions, in the period from October 2016 to the end of 2021. Rabobank said the two sides had too great a difference of view to reach an out-of-court settlement. ING and ABN AMRO settled comparable cases for €775M and €480M. Rabobank says the fine the OM seeks is too high. The amount has not been made public.
The investigation then widened. A draft charge dated December 18, 2025, covers the period from October 1, 2016, to the present. On December 8 and 9, 2025, the Fiscal Information and Investigation Service (FIOD) demanded the full compliance files of 29 named clients and general records. It collected seven data carriers from the bank. Rabobank complained that the demand breached its expectation that the case was limited to 2016 to 2021 and would delay its trial.
On March 24, 2026, the economic chamber of the Amsterdam District Court rejected the complaint. It held that the seizure was reasonably necessary for the investigation and that the OM had not promised to confine the case to 2021. De Telegraaf reported in June 2026 that the court had rejected a further objection by the bank to how the case was being prepared. No hearing dates have been published.
Timeline 6 events
-
JudgmentAmsterdam court rejects Rabobank’s complaint against the seizure
The economic chamber held the seizure reasonably necessary and refused to return the data while the investigation continues.
-
OrderProsecutors’ draft charge extends the period to the present
The draft charge alleges breaches of sections 3 and 16 of the Wwft from October 1, 2016, to the present.
-
FilingRabobank files a complaint against the seizure
The bank argued that the seizure was disproportionate and breached its expectation that the case covered only 2016 to 2021.
-
OrderFIOD collects data carriers at Rabobank’s Utrecht office
The bank complied under protest. Investigators received seven data carriers on December 9, 12, and 15, 2025.
-
OrderFIOD demands compliance files of 29 Rabobank clients
The demand covered client due diligence files from October 2016 to the present. A second demand on December 9 sought general records through February 13, 2023.
-
FilingProsecutors decide to summon Rabobank over alleged Wwft breaches
The OM said the investigation covered October 2016 to the end of 2021 and was in its final phase. Settlement talks had not produced an agreement.