Ralph Hamers and the ING money laundering scandal: Indictment and comparison with the Swedbank case

Former ING CEO Ralph Hamers continues to face prosecution for his role in ING's involvement in large-scale money laundering activities.

Although the bank reached a settlement with Dutch authorities in 2018, paying a fine of 775 million euros, Hamers has yet to face personal charges. Despite a Dutch court ruling, prosecutors have yet to formally charge him, calling into question the pace and priority of anti-money laundering (AML) in the Netherlands compared to other EU jurisdictions.

Payvision acquisition and money laundering charges

Under the leadership of Ralph Hamers, ING acquired a 75% stake in Payvision in 2018 for €360 million. At the time, Payvision was seen as a key asset to expand ING's reach in the dynamic payments sector. However, Payvision soon became embroiled in allegations of facilitating money laundering and cybercrime, including high-risk clients such as online gambling platforms. In October 2022, ING announced its intention to close Payvision, but questions remain about how thorough due diligence was carried out during the acquisition and why ING did not take steps to mitigate AML/CFT risks sooner.

It is clear that ING, under the leadership of Ralph Hamers, neglected to conduct due diligence before acquiring Payvision. This error exposed ING to significant risks, as it subsequently emerged that Payvision was deeply involved in facilitating money laundering and cybercrime.

The consequences were severe: ING not only suffered reputational damage, but also the financial consequences - the closure of Payvision in 2023 - led to significant losses for the bank. These losses, which were ultimately borne by ING shareholders, resulted in lower profits and a drop in confidence in the bank's risk management practices. An oversight in due diligence represents a critical failure in corporate governance and risk mitigation.

Comparison with the conviction of the CEO of Swedbank

Hamers' situation bears striking similarities to the case of former Swedbank CEO Birgitte Bonnesen, who was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison for making misleading statements about the bank's compliance with anti-money laundering laws. Bonnesen was convicted after her assurances that Swedbank had nothing to do with the Danske Bank money laundering scandal were proven false. As a result, Swedbank shares fell, resulting in huge financial losses for shareholders.

However, despite a Dutch court ruling calling for a criminal investigation into Hamers, no formal charges have ever been laid, highlighting inconsistencies in how money laundering cases are prosecuted across the EU. ING's connection with Payvision, a company directly facilitating illegal activities, is perhaps more significant than Swedbank's indirect connections with the Estonian branch of Danske Bank. However, the legal response in the Netherlands has been slower and less aggressive than in Sweden.

Compliance Insight: Differences in Anti-Money Laundering Enforcement

This discrepancy in enforcement measures between Sweden and the Netherlands highlights a worrying inconsistency. Swedish courts quickly took action against Bonnesen for her role in financial irregularities, while Dutch authorities were more lenient towards Hamers, despite clear evidence of ING's failures under his leadership. This suggests that money laundering is receiving less attention in Amsterdam than in Stockholm, a worrying reality for those interested in the integrity of Europe's financial systems.

Although Hamers became CEO of UBS, an unsolved criminal investigation continues to cast a shadow over his career and the broader question of the accountability of senior executives at financial institutions. The outcome of this case could set a crucial precedent for how European regulators and courts address money laundering at the highest corporate level.