By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 26/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
When an e-money provider closes a business account, the practical outcome is often less about “closure notice” and more about payment cut-offs and staged fund release.
That is because e-money balances are usually treated under a safeguarding regime, can be dependent on third-party rails/partners, and can be affected by settlement and dispute timelines.
Bank closures can also involve restrictions and delays, but the mechanics are different because bank balances are deposits and the bank typically controls the account ledger and payment services end-to-end.
For e-money, a closure can look like an “exit process” with multiple steps: stopping outgoing payments, reconciling positions, applying contractual deductions, and releasing any remaining safeguarded funds to a nominated destination.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
Why EMI account closures differ from bank closures
The starting point: what kind of “money” is on the account?
Many app-based business accounts are not bank accounts. They may be issued by an e-money institution (EMI) under the e-money and payment services framework, rather than being a deposit-taking bank.
The first operational step in any closure is confirming which category applies (see App business accounts: bank or e-money? Check the FCA Register and the FCA’s Firm Checker).
That categorisation matters because bank balances are deposits, while e-money balances are typically protected through safeguarding obligations, interpreted in the FCA’s Payment Services and Electronic Money Approach Document and set within the Electronic Money Regulations 2011 and Payment Services Regulations 2017.
Safeguarding is about protection, not guaranteed same-day access
Safeguarding is commonly described as protecting relevant customer funds from being used as the firm’s own money, particularly in failure scenarios. It does not automatically mean withdrawals will be immediate during an operational event such as a closure or restriction.
For a plain-English explanation, see Safeguarding explained: e-money institutions and customer funds and the comparison in Safeguarding vs deposit cover.
By contrast, bank deposits may be eligible for FSCS deposit cover subject to scheme rules (see the FSCS overview of what it covers). That is a different protection model from safeguarding and can lead to different expectations about what happens during disruption or closure.
What “closure” often looks like with an e-money provider (EMI exit)
An EMI closure commonly operates as a managed exit rather than a single switch being flipped. Even where the provider gives notice, the operational steps often revolve around controlling payment risk and winding down activity safely.
1) Payment cut-offs can happen early
A common pattern is that outgoing payments are restricted first (sometimes before formal closure completes), because the provider is controlling exposure while it reviews activity, reconciles positions, or completes compliance checks. This can look similar to an “outgoing payments paused” event (see E-money provider pauses outgoing payments) even where the end state is closure.
For businesses, the operational impact is typically felt through payroll runs, supplier schedules, and time-sensitive payments that depend on the account’s rails.
2) Information requests and “limited explanation” are common
Both banks and EMIs operate under financial crime obligations. In some circumstances, firms may provide limited detail about why an account is being restricted or closed, including due to “tipping off” risks (see Why banks can’t explain restrictions and the FCA’s consumer-facing context on using payment service providers).
This can be operationally frustrating, but it is also why closures can involve staged steps and evidence review before release actions are taken.
3) Reconciliation, settlement and disputes can influence timelines
If the EMI account is connected to card settlement flows, merchant acquiring, or staged transfers, closure can trigger a need to reconcile what is “final” versus what is still pending. The payment chain matters here (see Merchant account vs EMI balance vs bank balance: the payments chain).
Disputes can also affect what can be released immediately. Depending on the setup, funds may be withheld to cover potential chargebacks or unresolved settlement exposures (see Chargebacks and card disputes with EMI settlements).
4) Contractual deductions may be applied before release
Some e-money terms allow certain fees and adjustments to be deducted from stored value balances, depending on the contract and the fee event. This can matter during closure, because the “remaining balance” is not always identical to the headline balance before deductions are applied (see Set-off and deductions in EMI accounts).
That is one of the key ways an EMI exit can differ from a bank closure, where set-off may exist but operates within a different account and deposit framework.
What “closure” often looks like with a bank account
Banks can also restrict accounts, issue notice, and close accounts under their terms and legal obligations. Operationally, a bank closure usually centres on the bank’s control of the deposit account and its own payments execution, with fewer layers between “account ledger” and “payment rails” than many e-money setups.
Two bank-closure timing touchpoints often raised by businesses are (a) what happens to payments that were in flight and (b) how quickly remaining balances are returned after the account is closed (see Outgoing payments if an account is closed mid-processing and How long banks return remaining balance).
Bank closures may also involve ongoing restrictions versus closure decisions (see Compliance restriction vs closure), and the level of explanation can be limited in some circumstances (see Why banks can’t explain restrictions).
Summary table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| EMI closes account (managed exit) | Outgoing payments cut off; staged release process | Payroll/suppliers/tax timing disruption if alternative rails are not available |
| EMI closure with settlement exposure | Some funds withheld pending reconciliation/disputes | Delay in releasing full balance; operational uncertainty around available funds |
| EMI closure with contractual deductions | Fees/adjustments applied before release | “Balance shown” may differ from “balance released” |
| Bank closes account (notice or immediate) | Payments stopped; return of remaining funds | In-flight payments may fail/return; replacement account needed for continuity |
| Bank closure with compliance restriction phase | Restriction precedes closure | Temporary inability to transact; limited explanation possible |
| Inbound payments after closure (bank or EMI) | Payments rejected/returned or routed to suspense processes | Customers and platforms may need updated bank details to reduce returns |
What drives timelines and fund release speed in EMI exits
Safeguarding operations and the “release pathway”
E-money providers are expected to safeguard relevant customer funds, but the operational question during a closure is how funds move from safeguarded arrangements back to the customer (or to a nominated destination).
That “release pathway” often depends on internal controls, third-party banking arrangements, and reconciliation steps (see How safeguarding accounts work in practice and the FCA’s Approach Document).
This is one reason closures can vary significantly in timing between providers, even where the regulatory framework is the same.
Settlement, disputes, and “residual liabilities”
Where an account is used in payment chains that involve delayed settlement, refunds, or disputes, closure can require additional steps before the provider is comfortable releasing all funds. This is particularly visible where chargebacks and card disputes are involved (see Chargebacks and card disputes with EMI settlements).
A useful way to think about it is that closure often triggers the provider to separate what is already final from what might still reverse or be contested.
In-flight payments and rejected inbound transfers
Closures frequently intersect with operational timing: standing orders, scheduled payouts, or transfers that were mid-processing can fail, return, or be cancelled depending on the stage they were at when closure actions were applied (see Outgoing payments if an account is closed mid-processing).
Inbound transfers can also be affected. In many closures, incoming payments are rejected, returned, or may require manual handling depending on the rails and receiving setup (see Incoming payments when a business account is closed).
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level | Process-level (what happens behind the scenes) | Outcome-level (what you typically see) |
|---|---|---|
| EMI-managed exit | Provider restricts features; confirms positions; prepares closure | Outgoing payments stop first; closure proceeds in stages |
| EMI with settlement exposure | Reconciliation of pending settlements/refunds/disputes | Part of balance withheld; release occurs in tranches or after milestones |
| EMI fee/deduction step | Contractual fees/adjustments applied to stored value | Net release differs from pre-closure displayed balance |
| Bank closure | Bank stops payment services; calculates remaining balance | In-flight items may fail/return; remaining balance returned per process |
| Compliance-led restriction before closure | Risk controls applied; limited explanation possible | Temporary inability to transact; closure may follow |
| Inbound payments after closure | Rails reject, return, or route transfers differently by scheme | Increased returns; counterparties need updated payment details |
Compare Business Bank Accounts
From an operational perspective, the key difference is that bank accounts are deposit accounts delivered by deposit-takers, while many app-based accounts are delivered by EMIs under the safeguarding model. That distinction can affect expectations around protections, process steps, and what “closure” looks like in practice.
For a neutral overview of account types and typical features, see our hub: Business bank accounts.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not always. Many closures start with a restriction phase: outgoing payments might be paused or certain functions disabled while the provider reviews activity or prepares an exit. That can feel like a freeze even if the provider has not yet completed formal closure actions (see E-money provider pauses outgoing payments and Compliance restriction vs closure).
The practical difference is the end state. A restriction may be reversible, whereas closure is typically a termination of the account relationship. Some providers reinstate accounts after review in certain circumstances, but that depends on the facts and the provider’s assessment (see Account reinstatement after compliance review).
Both banks and EMIs operate under financial crime controls. In some cases, firms may limit what they say to avoid risks associated with “tipping off” or to protect controls and investigations (see Why banks can’t explain restrictions).
This can create uncertainty for business users, especially during an exit. The FCA’s consumer information on using payment service providers is a useful reference point for understanding the category of provider and the kinds of issues that can arise, including how failures and service disruptions are treated.
In e-money, the provider’s obligations commonly relate to safeguarding and orderly handling of relevant customer funds under the regulatory framework (see the FCA’s Approach Document and the Electronic Money Regulations 2011).
Operationally, release often involves verifying the destination for funds, reconciling positions, and executing a transfer once the provider is satisfied that the balance is final.
The practical mechanics vary by provider and setup. Where funds are held in safeguarding arrangements and released through operational controls, the timeline can depend on internal sign-offs and third-party dependencies (see How safeguarding accounts work in practice).
It can, depending on the payment chain and contractual arrangements. Where there is card settlement exposure or open disputes, providers (and related parties) may hold funds while outcomes are determined, particularly where reversals remain possible (see Chargebacks and card disputes with EMI settlements).
This is one of the key reasons “account closure date” and “full release date” are not always the same thing. The timing can be influenced by the dispute lifecycle and by what the provider treats as settled versus contingent exposure.
Some EMI terms allow certain fees and adjustments to be taken from stored value balances, depending on the event and the contract. During closure, that can mean the amount released is the net balance after deductions rather than the headline balance shown earlier (see Set-off and deductions in EMI accounts).
This differs from the way many business users intuitively think about a “bank balance”. In both models, contractual terms matter, but the framing and mechanics can look different between stored value and deposit account structures.
Closed accounts commonly stop accepting inbound transfers. Depending on scheme rules and the stage of processing, inbound payments may be rejected and returned, or routed into exception handling processes that delay the final outcome (see Incoming payments when a business account is closed).
Operationally, this can create secondary disruption: customers, platforms, marketplaces, and counterparties may continue sending to old details until records are updated. That can increase returned payments and reconciliation work even after the closure event has happened.
In-flight payments can fail, return, or be cancelled depending on where they are in the processing chain when closure or restrictions are applied.
The key variable is whether the payment has reached an irreversible stage in the relevant rail and whether the provider can still execute the instruction (see Outgoing payments if an account is closed mid-processing).
This is one reason closure timelines feel unpredictable from the outside: two payments sent minutes apart may have different outcomes if they are processed under different rails or reach different cut-off points.
Bank closures often focus on calculating and returning any remaining deposit balance after closures and restrictions are applied, and after any internal processes are completed. A practical overview of what affects return timing is covered in How long banks return remaining balance after account closure.
EMI exits can involve additional “balance finality” steps: safeguarding operations, settlement reconciliation, and potential withheld amounts for disputes or liabilities. As a result, “closure date” and “funds fully released” can diverge more commonly in e-money contexts than business users expect.
FSCS deposit cover applies to eligible deposits held with banks, building societies, and credit unions under FSCS rules (see FSCS: what we cover). Many e-money providers are not deposit-takers, so the FSCS deposit cover model is not the default protection framework for e-money balances.
E-money protections are typically described through safeguarding under the relevant regulatory framework (see Safeguarding vs deposit cover and the FCA’s Approach Document). That difference is central to understanding why exit mechanics and access timelines can look different.
Complaint routes depend on the provider category, the facts, and eligibility. The Financial Ombudsman Service explains its remit for banking and payments complaints, which can include account services and payment problems, depending on circumstances.
Operationally, closures often generate disputes about communication, timelines, and the handling of funds rather than a single “wrong transaction”. Keeping the distinction clear between restriction decisions, closure decisions, and fund release steps helps frame what a complaint is actually about (see Compliance restriction vs closure).
Account closure is best understood as a process rather than a moment. With banks, the bank’s deposit ledger and payment execution are typically integrated, so the closure journey often centres on restriction, termination, and the bank’s process for returning any remaining balance.
With e-money, the “exit” often spans more moving parts: safeguarding operations, rail dependencies, settlement finality, dispute exposure, and contractual deductions.
That is why businesses can experience a gap between “account closed” and “funds fully released”, and why payment continuity risk can materialise earlier than the formal closure date.
Sources & References
FCA: Firm Checker
FCA: Payment Services and Electronic Money Approach Document (PDF)
UK legislation: Electronic Money Regulations 2011
UK legislation: Payment Services Regulations 2017
FSCS: What we cover
Financial Ombudsman Service: Banking and payments
Related Content
