The National Bank of Ukraine Denied Revolut a License and Forced It to Exit the Market

According to these sources, the dialogue between Revolut and the NBU lasted for more than six months, but the parties ultimately failed to reach a compromise. The negotiating process reached an impasse despite the company’s attempts to resolve outstanding issues with the regulator.

In February 2025, following a six-week beta test, Revolut announced the opening of accounts for Ukrainians residing in Ukraine. About two weeks later, the National Bank publicly declared such activity illegal. The regulator emphasized the risks for customers, noting that funds held with Revolut are not covered by the Deposit Guarantee Fund for individuals and that, in the event of the bank’s closure, Ukrainian users would not be entitled to compensation. The NBU also insisted on the need to undergo full licensing and comply with all regulatory requirements.

Revolut subsequently initiated the licensing process, a move confirmed in April 2025 by NBU Deputy Governor Dmytro Oleinik. However, by the fall, reports began circulating in the market about the collapse of the talks and the possible exit of the neobank from Ukraine. This information received official confirmation only the day before.

Revolut is a British fintech company headquartered in London, founded in 2015 by Ukrainian national Vlad Yatsenko and Russian national Nikolay Storonsky. The company provides currency exchange services, card account management, and trading in equities, cryptocurrencies, and commodities. In 2018, with the support of Lithuania, Revolut obtained a challenger banking license from the European Central Bank, allowing it to take deposits and issue consumer loans. This type of license is used by digital banks that have gained popularity across the EU, including Monzo, N26, and Chime. In 2021, the company also received a banking license in the United Kingdom.

Market sources believe that the effective refusal to grant a license was a deliberate decision by the NBU’s leadership. In their assessment, Revolut differs markedly from European banks whose subsidiaries already operate in Ukraine. “These are typically large, slow-moving institutions whose technologies are not comparable to what leading Ukrainian banks offer. Revolut is a fundamentally different player. It would have become a serious competitor to both Monobank and PrivatBank. The question is—who benefits from that. That is why the license was not granted. There is also a second aspect—given the ease of opening an account, Revolut could have attracted a significant number of clients in Ukraine even without an NBU license, offering quick and convenient access to accounts at a foreign bank. Ukrainians could have transferred funds there from their domestic accounts, for example within the 100,000-hryvnia limit. That would have meant a direct outflow of foreign currency from the country. This is precisely why, back in February, the National Bank stated that Revolut’s operations without a license were illegal. After that, Ukrainian banks began blocking transfers to its cards. Revolut applied for a license and was refused. After that, continuing to operate on the Ukrainian market no longer made sense,” the source explained.