From this section we can learn about three additional steps that a banking corporation is authorized to take - imposing quantitative restrictions on the actions performed, stopping a certain activity or closing the account.
(I will note that a similar provision currently exists in section 50 of the provisions of the amended Procedure 411).
the tension between the obligation to provide service and the obligations to prevent money laundering and terrorism;
- The above reviewed the banking corporation's obligation to provide service to its customers on the one hand, and its duties deriving from the legislation for the prevention of money laundering and terrorism on the other. The banking corporation's modus operandi in order to reduce and prevent risks arising from its customers or their activities was also presented, including the bank's authority to demand information and documents, to reduce or prevent activity, and even to order the closure of an account. Given that the banking corporation's recent powers may, naturally, lead in some cases - burdening customers' activities, reducing the scope of their activity, and even preventing their activity - a tension arises between these obligations and the bank's duties to provide service, which ostensibly contradict them. This tension, which necessitates and requires the establishment of rules and guidelines for the banking corporations as to the manner in which they should act where in their opinion, there is a conflict between the two duties.
In this context, first of all, and as stated above, section 24 of Procedure 411 states that a breach of a requirement to provide documents or information will be sufficient to establish a reasonable refusal to provide a service - i.e., a refusal that is determined as an exception to the obligation to provide a service set forth in section 2(a) of the Banking Law. Similarly, in the framework of the case law as cited above, including in the judgment in the case of Emaar, it was determined that a refusal to provide a service, including in a manner that amounts to the closure of an account, based on suspicions of violations of the legislation regarding money laundering, will be considered a reasonable refusal to provide a service.