Fintech bank charter rejections just got a second high-profile example: the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency rejected bunq’s application for a US national bank charter on August 7, citing gaps in capital planning, credit risk modeling, management experience, profitability assumptions and familiarity with US banking rules. It is the second high-profile fintech charter denial this year, following Wise’s rejection over what the OCC called long-standing deficiencies in its anti-money-laundering and counterterrorism-financing systems, and it lands just weeks after Revolut cleared the same regulator’s bar for a US bank charter.

More than 30 neobanks, digital asset firms, lenders, investment firms and payment providers have gone through the OCC’s charter process in 2026. Most have been approved or are still pending, but the regulator has started publishing outright denials rather than quietly declining applications, and in at least one case, Zerohash, it simply returned an application without a decision at all.

That is a shift in posture. A few years ago, a fintech that was not ready would typically be told informally to withdraw. Publishing a denial creates a public record that competitors, banking partners and investors can all read.

Wise’s rejection specifically flagged AML and CTF program gaps and a management team regulators judged unfamiliar with the fiduciary duties of running a national bank. Bunq’s read similarly: not one fatal flaw but a cluster of foundational gaps across capital adequacy, credit risk, management bench strength and profitability assumptions that the OCC judged too optimistic. Both are governance and process failures, not product failures. Neither company was turned down because its app does not work.

What Fintech Bank Charter Rejections Actually Test

A charter application audits the parts of a fintech that customers never see: the ledger, the audit trail, the board’s experience running a regulated balance sheet, and whether the growth plan survives a regulator’s own stress-testing assumptions. That is a different bar than winning distribution or shipping a good product, and it is one that many venture-backed fintechs are not built for, because their operating rhythm assumes speed is the scarce resource. Regulators are testing whether proof is.

Fintechbits analysis

Why Fintech Bank Charters Are Getting Harder to Win

None of this is an exotic checklist. Capital formation, liquidity planning, governance readiness, board and executive experience, a compliance management system that can survive an exam, a mature BSA and AML program, technology resilience and third-party risk oversight are all fairly well documented requirements. What trips fintechs up is less a matter of not knowing the list and more a matter of discovering, mid-application, how much evidence a regulator wants behind each line item.

Some of this is heightened scrutiny after a run of consumer fintech failures and bank-partnership blowups over the past two years, which has made regulators warier of taking a growth story at face value. Some of it is scale: neobanks that raised money assuming they would eventually hold a charter are now hitting that wall at a size where the gaps are expensive and visible rather than small enough to quietly patch. And some of it is that supervisory expectations for BSA and AML program maturity, and for third-party risk oversight, have moved up across the industry, charter application or not.

Revolut’s approval is the useful counterexample. It came weeks after Wise and bunq were turned down, and after Revolut had already picked up a second EU banking licence it did not strictly need, the kind of belt-and-suspenders regulatory investment that looks excessive right up until a competitor gets rejected for lacking exactly that.

What Founders Should Take From These Fintech Bank Charter Decisions

The founders who avoid the Wise and bunq outcome are not necessarily the ones with better technology. They are the ones who treat the unglamorous half of the business, the audit trail, the reporting, the ability to explain why the system made a given decision, as core infrastructure from day one rather than something to retrofit before a charter filing or a large enterprise deal. That work does not show up in a product demo, which is exactly why it tends to get underinvested in until a regulator, an auditor or an enterprise buyer forces the issue.

Fintechs selling into banks or embedded finance partners feel this earliest, since those partners are taking on risk every time they distribute someone else’s product to their own customers.

Worth watching next is whether the OCC keeps publishing denials rather than handling them quietly. A public record of exactly what fintechs are getting wrong, thin capital plans, undercooked AML programs, management teams new to bank supervision, is likely to shape how the next wave of charter applicants builds before they ever file.

Fintechbits covers fintech regulation, compliance infrastructure and market structure. Nothing here constitutes financial or investment advice. All analysis represents the editorial views of Fintechbits.