Lithuanian law allows a bank to freeze a suspicious transaction for a maximum of 10 business days without formal law-enforcement action. If your business account stays blocked longer than that, with no explanation and no evidence of a criminal investigation, courts have repeatedly ruled the freeze unlawful – and ordered the bank to return the funds plus interest.

Revolut, the London-founded fintech, provides its European banking services through a subsidiary licensed in Lithuania and supervised by the Bank of Lithuania and the European Central Bank. It is there, in Vilnius, that a recent set of figures has drawn scrutiny – and with them a question that will be familiar to any British business following the UK’s own debate over frozen accounts: how long may a bank withhold a customer’s money before the law requires it to be returned?

Rolandas Kiškis, head of Lithuania’s Financial Crime Investigation Service (FCIS – the country’s Financial Intelligence Unit), recently gave the Lithuanian Parliament’s Budget and Finance Committee a telling statistic: the agency receives around 100,000 suspicious transaction reports a year, and a striking 80% of them come from a single market player – Revolut Bank. As the FCIS head himself noted, most of these reports are generated automatically, by a system that files a report the moment it detects the faintest hint of risk.

Revolut’s explanation is straightforward: the bank serves 57 million customers across the European Economic Area, so it naturally generates proportionally more reports, and its transaction monitoring relies on AI-driven systems that respond to potential fraud in real time.

For a UK readership the relevance is twofold. Revolut is a British-founded company that many in the UK use, so how frozen funds are handled within its European operations is of natural interest. More practically, a large number of UK businesses operating across the Channel – those with EU subsidiaries, euro-denominated accounts or European customers – hold money with institutions licensed not by the FCA but by regulators in Vilnius, Dublin or Amsterdam. Where such an account is frozen, it is the law of that jurisdiction, not UK law, that governs the customer’s rights.

Anti-money laundering compliance is, without question, an important, legally mandated duty for financial institutions. But this statistic has another side, one rarely discussed in public: behind every automatically generated report there is often a real customer whose funds are frozen, whose account may be blocked, and who frequently receives no explanation for weeks, months, sometimes over a year. “In practice, a number of these situations have no legal basis at all, and courts are increasingly ruling in customers’ favour,” says Dr. Justinas Jarusevičius, a partner and attorney at Lithuanian law firm Motieka & Audzevičius.

How Long Can a Bank Legally Freeze Your Money? The 10-Business-Day Rule

Lithuania’s Law on the Prevention of Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing – the national implementation of the EU’s anti-money-laundering framework – sets out a clear mechanism. When a financial institution identifies a suspicious transaction, it must suspend it and report it to FCIS within three business hours (Art. 16).

From that point, the decision shifts to the state. FCIS has 10 business days to take the steps needed to confirm or dispel its suspicions. If, within that period, the financial institution receives no instruction to apply a temporary restriction on ownership rights under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the transaction must be resumed.

In other words, a customer’s funds can lawfully stay frozen over a suspicious transaction for longer than 10 business days only once law enforcement has become involved and applied criminal-procedure measures – measures that can themselves be challenged in court.

In practice, Jarusevičius says, a different scenario often plays out: the financial institution blocks the account on its own initiative, tells the customer only that “compliance checks” are under way, or offers no explanation at all, while the funds sit “under review” for months – with no FCIS instruction, no pre-trial investigation, no court order. In such cases, if the institution cannot point to a specific legal basis, the freeze is unlawful and the institution faces civil liability.

Who Has to Prove the Freeze Was Justified? What the Courts Have Ruled

A telling example is a dispute recently concluded against NIUM EU, UAB, an electronic money institution licensed in Lithuania, in which Jarusevičius’s firm, Motieka & Audzevičius, represented two business clients. In June 2022, the institution cut off the clients’ access to accounts holding close to EUR 490,000, without any warning. Their complaints went unanswered, not within the 15-business-day deadline set by the Law on Payments, nor afterwards: the first substantive response arrived more than six months later, and the actual legal basis for freezing the funds was never disclosed until the case reached court.

On 6 June 2024, the Vilnius Regional Court, in civil case No. e2-1187-643/2024, ruled that the institution had failed to prove any legal basis for withholding the clients’ funds. The court rejected the institution’s defence, which relied on an instruction from a UK regulator addressed to the institution’s sister company: that instruction was neither binding on the Lithuanian entity in its dealings with its own clients, nor did it cover the claimants, who had no contractual relationship with the entities named in it. It was also significant that nothing in the case showed FCIS had ever been informed about the clients’ transactions at all, meaning the statutory prevention mechanism had never even been triggered.

On 12 December 2024, the Lithuanian Court of Appeal, in civil case No. e2A-510-912/2024, upheld the first instance ruling and set out a rule with significant practical implications: in disputes of this kind, it is the financial institution that must prove it reasonably restricted the client’s account access and had the right to withhold the funds. A vague reference to AML law, or to a generic contract clause allowing the institution to suspend services “in accordance with legal requirements” is not enough – the institution must identify and prove the specific statutory provision, or the specific instruction from a competent authority, underlying its actions.

This Court of Appeal case is not an isolated one. Lithuanian courts are currently hearing a number of similar cases in which clients of Lithuania-licensed financial institutions are seeking the return of funds held in their accounts but frozen by those institutions.

The outcome for the clients was not just the return of their funds (the institution transferred most of it once it learned of the court proceedings) – the court also awarded 12.5% annual interest for the period between the filing of the case and the return of the funds, plus legal costs.

What Should a Customer Whose Funds Are Frozen Do?

Jarusevičius recommends three practical steps. First, demand a written explanation of the grounds for the freeze. Under the Law on Payments, payment service providers must inform customers about the blocking of a payment instrument and its reasons (with narrow statutory exceptions), and must review a written complaint and provide a reasoned response within 15 business days.

Second, track the timeline. If more than 10 business days have passed since the transaction was suspended and the customer has received no information about any measures taken by law enforcement, the continued freeze is likely without legal basis.

Third, enforce your rights. Consumers can turn to the Bank of Lithuania, which resolves disputes between consumers and financial market participants out of court. For business clients, the main route is litigation, where they can claim not only the return of their funds but also interest for the period the funds were unlawfully withheld. The case law above shows that the burden of proof in these disputes falls on the financial institution, and that a passive stance by the institution, failing to respond to complaints, failing to disclose grounds, is weighed by courts in the client’s favour.

Clients often ask whether they have to simply wait for the bank to act first. They don’t, Jarusevičius says. Once the 10-business-day window has passed with no sign of law-enforcement involvement, the customer can send a formal legal demand and, if that goes unanswered, file a claim – there is no requirement to keep waiting indefinitely for the institution to volunteer an explanation.

Prevention – Yes. Arbitrariness – No.

The problem is not the filing of suspicious activity reports itself – that is a statutory, socially useful duty, and a high volume of reports does not by itself indicate wrongdoing. The problem arises when risk management turns into the indefinite withholding of customer funds without legal basis, without information, and without law enforcement involvement.

Lawmakers struck this balance clearly: a suspicion gives an institution the right to suspend a transaction for days, not months. After that, it is for the state to decide, and if it doesn’t, the money must go back to its owner. As the volume of automated reports keeps growing, that rule only becomes more relevant. For UK businesses that hold funds with EEA-licensed institutions, it is a distinction worth understanding before, not after, an account is frozen.

Justinas Jarusevičius is an attorney representing clients in financial services litigation, including the case against NIUM EU, UAB described above.

The project includes a stadium, jobs and 1,000 new homes over the next 20 years

Birmingham Council has outlined how Blues’ Sports Quarter could revitalise a ‘deprived’ neighbourhood as it presented a sweeping vision for the city’s future. The authority has recently published its draft Local Plan, an extensive document which examines how the council can help shape the city over the next two decades.

Specifically, it details how the council can support economic growth, tackle housing requirements and draw in investment, alongside regeneration prospects across the city.

One significant prospect is Birmingham City’s Sports Quarter scheme, which will redevelop the 48-acre Wheels Park site in the east of the city and be anchored by a new stadium called The Powerhouse.

The eye-catching design of the proposed stadium was unveiled last year, with Blues chairman Tom Wagner stating they aim to create a ‘globally-recognised colosseum’ that can also accommodate events such as concerts.

The broader Sports Quarter vision surrounding the stadium itself also encompasses new transport connections, a training facility, women’s stadium, arena and residential development.

Regarding how this scheme could contribute to Birmingham’s transformation in the years ahead, the city council indicated it would sit at the centre of the Bordesley Park Growth Zone.

“Bordesley Park will be re-invigorated into a vibrant, sustainable, and inclusive mixed-use neighbourhood, centred on a nationally significant, sports and leisure destination,” the draft Local Plan said

“The Sports Quarter […] provides a unique opportunity to establish Birmingham as a globally recognised destination for sports, leisure, entertainment and major events.

“Development will be anchored by a new stadium for Birmingham City FC, supported by training facilities, leisure and entertainment attractions and other complementary uses.

“Together, these uses will attract investment, create jobs, skills and training opportunities and act as a catalyst for wider regeneration across East Birmingham.”

The document went on to state that the Sports Quarter will be conceived as a “year-round destination”.

“[It will thrive] on both event and non-event days with new homes, new jobs and community facilities, high quality public realm, enhanced connectivity and environmental improvements,” it said.

“In doing so, it will foster pride in place and deliver lasting economic and social benefits for local communities and Birmingham as a whole.”

Regarding the Sports Quarter and St Andrew’s Park, the council added that future expansion and development will be progressed in accordance with the following principles:

• deliver a new stadium for Birmingham City FC alongside “national and international leisure and entertainment attractions to anchor the place and catalyse wider development”;
• provide additional appropriate sports and leisure facilities which strengthen the role of the location as a “destination for activity and well-being”;
• accommodate a suitable blend of uses which could encompass residential, commercial, business, industrial, education, hotel, leisure, retail, cultural and community purposes;
• deliver a minimum of 1,000 new homes informed by local housing requirements;
• provide additional appropriate community facilities, by “fostering social inclusion and participation” and supplying facilities designed for active use;
• contribute towards delivering substantial net additional jobs, skills, and training opportunities and pathways in the area directly on-site;
• deliver “high-quality public realm” to draw in visitors and investment, enhance the environmental quality for local residents and businesses, and promote a vibrant atmosphere on both event and non-event days;
• support the Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) on the western edge of the site and provide suitable mitigation, alongside measures to enhance green and blue infrastructure and biodiversity;
• integrate the existing St Andrew’s Stadium site within the broader regeneration vision for Bordesley Park, either as a retained sports stadium or alternative form of development, subject to further appraisals;
• improve connectivity to and through the site, prioritising walking, cycling and public transport movements while supporting the operational requirements of the destination.

Regarding transport in particular, the council said: “A wide range of measures are proposed to enhance connectivity to and through the area.

“This includes the development of rapid transit routes along the A45 (Sprint) and Eastern Metro Extension and potential improvements to existing railway services and local stations, including a potential relocated station at Adderley Park.”

The draft Local Plan added: “The Sports Quarter will be a key catalyst for the delivery of such major transport improvements, supporting the business case for investment in public transport improvements and promoting active travel modes.”

The council added that regeneration proposals could help address longstanding challenges of “deprivation, limited employment, poor health outcomes, and high levels of economic inactivity” throughout East Birmingham.

“The importance of Birmingham City FC to the local area will continue to be recognised as an important community institution, contributor to the regional economy, and a national presence in sport representing the city,” it added.

Earlier this year, West Midlands Mayor Richard Parker launched Britain’s ‘biggest and most powerful’ Mayoral Development Corporation (MDC) to ‘significantly speed up’ the £11bn regeneration of East Birmingham.

Mayor Parker said at the time that the MDC initiative would harness a broad range of powers, encompassing land acquisition, planning, business tax incentives and infrastructure funding.

He went on to say this would enable the corporation to cut through bureaucratic obstacles, bolster investor confidence and accelerate investment into the region, delivering significant benefits to major schemes such as the Sports Quarter.

The standalone health insurer had posted a net profit of Rs 438 crore during the corresponding quarter of the previous financial year.

During the quarter, total income increased to Rs 4,471 crore from Rs 3,990 crore in the same period a year ago, Star Health and Allied Insurance Company said in a regulatory filing.

The private health insurance firm’s gross written premium during the quarter rose 19 per cent to Rs 4,287 crore from Rs 3,605 crore in the year-ago period.

The insurer’s underwriting profit surged to Rs 111 crore from Rs 16 crore in the corresponding quarter last year.

Live Events

However, the company’s solvency ratio declined to 209 per cent from 222 per cent in the same quarter a year ago.
“Our performance in the first quarter reflects the strength of our fundamentals and the consistency of our execution,” Star Health Insurance Managing Director and CEO Anand Roy said.Sustainable growth, improvement in core underwriting profitability and operating discipline helped the company deliver a strong start to the year, he added.

The insurer settled 9.6 lakh claims during the quarter, while its retail claims settlement ratio improved to 91 per cent.

New accounts for the family-run business show large strides in its performance

Sales at internet homeware retailer Online Home Shop have topped £100m, with profits also surging.

The Trafford Park-based seller of bedding, furniture and clothes, among other products, has filed accounts showing a turnover rose from £59.6m to £100.2m in the year to the end of January, 2026. Operating profit tripled from £4.9m to £15.3m across the year as bosses hailed a second consecutive record breaking year.

Online Home Shop said the growth was down to an increasing the customer base, repeat purchases, and expanding into new product categories, particularly in garden, furniture and clothing. Gross Profit for the year was 30.4%, up 5.6% on the prior year thanks to increased profitability across all product categories, incremental performance of new product categories and improved efficiencies.

The 200-strong business recently announced the opening of a new 327,000 sqft fulfilment centre in Trafford Park. That move is intended to help stock management and improve distribution efficiency as the firm responds to growing demand.

Headcount is expected to double to more than 400 in the current financial year. During the first half, sales are said to be up 50% year-on-year with further growth expected across the rest of the year.

Moshe Cohen, CEO of Online Home Shop, said: “We are delighted to announce another strong set of results, reflecting the exceptional talent, commitment and hard work of everyone across OHS. Our continued investment in our people and infrastructure has strengthened the business and positioned us for sustainable long-term growth.

“By attracting and developing the very best people, we continue to deliver high-quality, trend-led homeware products at unbeatable prices, while providing an outstanding shopping experience for our customers. As we look ahead, we remain focused on building on this momentum and delivering the next phase of our growth.”

Online Home Shop Ltd was launched in 2014 and is controlled and run by the Cohen family. It has stated an ambition to become one of the UK’s largest online retailers.

Copyright ©2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8