Former ING CEO Ralph Hamers continues to face legal scrutiny for his role in ING‘s involvement in large-scale money laundering activities. Although the bank settled with Dutch authorities in 2018, paying a €775 million fine, Hamers has yet to be personally charged. Despite a Dutch court’s order, prosecutors have yet to formally indict him, raising questions about the pace and priority of anti-money laundering (AML) enforcement in the Netherlands compared to other EU jurisdictions.
Payvision Acquisition and Money Laundering Allegations
Under Ralph Hamers’ leadership, ING acquired a 75% stake in Payvision in 2018 for €360 million. At the time, Payvision was seen as a key asset in expanding ING‘s reach into the dynamic payments sector. However, Payvision soon found itself 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 linger about the due diligence performed during the acquisition and why ING failed to act sooner to mitigate AML risks.
It is evident that ING, under the leadership of Ralph Hamers, neglected to conduct thorough due diligence before acquiring Payvision. This failure exposed ING to significant risks, as Payvision was later found to be deeply involved in facilitating money laundering and cybercrime.
The consequences were severe: not only did ING suffer reputational damage, but the financial impact—stemming from Payvision‘s closure in 2023—led to substantial losses for the bank. These losses, ultimately borne by ING’s shareholders, manifested in reduced profits and diminished trust in the bank’s risk management practices. The oversight in due diligence represents a critical failure in corporate governance and risk mitigation.
Read more about Payvision here.
Comparisons to Swedbank’s CEO Conviction
The situation with Hamers 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 her bank’s AML compliance. Bonnesen’s conviction came after her assurances that Swedbank had no links to the Danske Bank money laundering scandal were proven false. As a result, Swedbank’s stock plunged, causing massive financial losses for shareholders.
In contrast, despite the Dutch court’s ruling calling for a criminal investigation into Hamers, there has been no formal indictment, which highlights inconsistencies in how money laundering cases are prosecuted across the EU. ING’s connection to Payvision, a company directly facilitating illicit activities, is arguably more significant than Swedbank’s indirect links to Danske Bank’s Estonian branch. Yet, the legal response in the Netherlands has been slower and less aggressive than in Sweden.
Compliance Insight: Disparities in AML Enforcement
This divergence in enforcement actions between Sweden and the Netherlands highlights a troubling inconsistency. The Swedish courts swiftly took action against Bonnesen for her role in financial misconduct, whereas Dutch authorities have been more lenient toward Hamers despite clear evidence of ING’s failings under his leadership. This suggests that money laundering is a lower priority in Amsterdam than in Stockholm, an alarming reality for those invested in the integrity of Europe’s financial systems.
While Hamers has moved on to become the CEO of UBS, the unresolved criminal investigation continues to cast a shadow over his career and the broader question of accountability for senior executives in financial institutions. The outcome of the case could set a crucial precedent for how European regulators and courts handle money laundering at the highest corporate levels.
