Capital One says it closed Trump-affiliated accounts over money-laundering probe, not Jan. 6 riots
Summarized and contextualized by DistantNews.
At a glance
- Capital One stated it closed about 300 accounts affiliated with former President Donald Trump for anti-money laundering (AML) reasons, not due to the January 6 riots.
- The bank informed account holders in March 2021 of its decision to close accounts by June 2021, providing a three-month notice period.
- Capital One argued in a recent court filing that the lawsuit, filed four years later, should be dismissed as the plaintiffs lack a plausible legal claim and the bank was not obligated to provide a reason for termination.
Capital One has asserted that it closed approximately 300 bank accounts linked to companies associated with former U.S. President Donald Trump due to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, not in response to the January 6 Capitol riots.
The bank notified the account holders in March 2021 that their accounts would be closed by June of the same year, offering a three-month window to arrange for new banking services. Capital One stated that extensions were granted upon request beyond the initial deadline.
months of analysis and a careful review
The lawsuit, filed in March 2025, alleged that Capital One terminated the accounts to distance itself from Trump following the January 6 events. However, the bank rejected this claim in a new court motion, arguing that the plaintiffs' theory relies on selective quotes lacking full context from the bank's records. Capital One's financial-crimes unit conducted "months of analysis and a careful review" before making the decision.
Capital One further contended that it was not obligated to provide a reason for closing the accounts, citing contract terms that did not require an explanation. The bank also noted that the Bank Secrecy Act would have restricted the disclosure of information regarding its internal AML processes. The bank argued that the alleged harm to the plaintiffs, including loss of services and difficulty obtaining new accounts, would have occurred regardless of whether a reason was provided.
Where (as here) a contract specifically provides that no explanation is required for termination, a party cannot simultaneously claim that the other partyโs silence regarding its reasons for closure constitutes concealment.
Originally published by Jerusalem Post. Summarized and contextualized by our editorial team with added local perspective. Read our editorial standards.