欧盟制裁更新：支付服务新常见问题解答

16 March 2026 On 13 March 2026, the European Commission(EC) published an FAQ entitled “Provision ofpayments services”, refining the EU sanctionstargeting Russia.1Compared to previousguidance touching upon Article 5b(2) inCouncil Regulation 833/2014, this new FAQis a significant shift because it translates thelegal requirements of Article 5b(2) into thepractical language used in day-to-day paymentoperations.2 The residence and nationality exceptions must be readseparately from that basic rule. Even where a natural personwould otherwise fall within Article 5b(2), the prohibition doesnot apply if that person is a national of a Member State,of a country in the European Economic Area (EEA), or ofSwitzerland, or if that person holds a temporary or permanentresidence permit in one of those jurisdictions. The MarchFAQ adds that holders of long-stay Type D visas who havecompleted the requisite residence-registration formalities aretypically to be treated as legally resident for these purposes. The FAQ also refines the residence exception by clarifyingthat instruments like residence permits must remain validthroughout the full validity period of any newly issuedpayment instrument. That raises a practical implementationquestion, namely how the duration of the instrument is to bealigned with the duration of the underlying residence right.Firms may therefore need to consider shorter instrument-validity periods, permit-expiry triggers, or renewal andrevalidation controls. A Broader Scope The March FAQ provides more detailed guidance regardingaccount continuity than anything issued so far. It clarifies thatArticle 5b(2) does not, in itself, require operators to terminateexisting contracts or close accounts altogether. Rather, thebroader customer relationship and nonprohibited services maycontinue, while the specific activities prohibited by Article 5b(2)must cease for customers who fall within scope. For banks,payment institutions and electronic-money institutions, thatdistinction is operationally significant because it separates thecontinued existence of the customer relationship from theseparate question of whether a prohibited service is beingprovided. Defining the Payment Chain The March FAQ clarifies that existing payment instruments donot need to be cancelled or frozen, and that online and mobilebanking, direct bank transfers and cash withdrawals are notprohibited by Article 5b(2)(b). By contrast, the prohibition doesapply to the issuance, renewal or replacement of additionalcards, and to commercial cards personalised for in-scopepersons who do not benefit from the relevant exceptions.The distinction is therefore not between all paymentinstrument-related (i.e. card-related) activity and no card-related activity, but between the continued use of certainexisting arrangements and the provision of new or specificallyprohibited payment services. That clarification should not be read as any relaxation ofsupervisory expectations. The obligation remains to ensure thatprohibited services are not provided. There is an obvious risk offalse comfort where firms rely upon the fact that accounts neednot be closed, yet lack both the controls and the capability toadequately demonstrate to show that prohibited services wereactually being in fact being prevented. The FAQ then refines that analysis by looking beyond theinstrument itself to the service through which the transactionis carried out. A card may remain formally valid, yet a particularmethod of using it may still involve a prohibited service. Thatis why the EC draws a distinction between the continuedexistence of the payment instrument and the separatequestion of whether the surrounding payment infrastructureamounts to acquiring or payment initiation. In the samevein, the FAQ states that a simple bank-link redirection tothe user’s own bank is not, without third-party initiation, aprohibited payment-initiation service. Ownership and Residence Further clarification concerns the basic scope of Article 5b(2).As explained in the March FAQ, the prohibition is directed atthree principal categories of customers: Russian nationals,natural persons residing in Russia, and legal persons, entitiesor bodies established in Russia. By contrast, an entityestablished in a Member State or in a third country doesnot fall within Article 5b(2) merely because it is owned orcontrolled by Russian persons. Russian ownership, in itself,is therefore not enough to trigger the prohibition for paymentservices, although the FAQ is equally clear that Article 12may still be engaged where such an entity is being used as avehicle for circumvention. The practical consequence is that firms can no longer assesscompliance at the level of the product or channel alone. Theymust instead identify and classify the underlying paymentservices embedded within each transaction flow. In manycases, a single customer interaction will involve multipleservice components, some of which may fall within Article5b(2) whi