Capital One says it closed Trump Organization bank accounts after anti-money-laundering review, court filing discloses

Capital One Financial has told a court that it closed bank accounts associated with the Trump Organization after an anti-money-laundering review, according to a disclosure reported by The Guardian. The statement was included in court materials filed in connection with a lawsuit challenging the bank’s decision to close the accounts years earlier, and it frames the closure as the product of compliance scrutiny rather than customer preference or business strategy.

The Guardian reported that the filing points to a 2021 investigation and said the disclosure marks the first time a bank has formally linked money-laundering concerns to the Trump Organization in connection with the account-closure decision. The report described Capital One’s explanation as stemming from an internal review process performed with input from anti-money-laundering specialists.

According to the reporting, Capital One’s new detail answers a central dispute in the case: why the bank ended its relationship with accounts connected to Donald Trump’s business entities. The lawsuit, as described by The Guardian, focuses on the bank’s conduct and the reasons it gave at the time, with the latest filing adding specificity about the compliance basis for the closures.

The reported development comes as financial institutions increasingly rely on anti-money-laundering frameworks required under U.S. law and regulatory expectations. Banks may review customer relationships for risks tied to transactions, accounts, and other business activity, and those assessments can lead to restrictions or termination of services if the risk is deemed too high. The Guardian’s report indicates Capital One is tying its decision to those kinds of risk findings.

In its reported account, the bank’s filing uses language about anti-money-laundering experts conducting a review, rather than simply citing general policy. The practical effect of the filing, if adopted by the court’s record, is to place the anti-money-laundering assessment more directly at the center of the factual dispute over what prompted the account closures and when that rationale was formed.

The case is being litigated in the ordinary course of civil court proceedings, where filings and disclosures can shape what evidence is available for consideration. If the court accepts the bank’s compliance explanation as part of the record, it could narrow the parties’ focus to whether the bank’s process was lawful and accurate, and whether any claims in the lawsuit can proceed without a different causation theory.

The next steps in the dispute will likely involve continued briefing and the exchange of evidence. Whether the bank’s anti-money-laundering review will be supported by underlying documentation, and whether the plaintiffs can challenge the factual basis for the compliance findings, will depend on the court schedule and what each side produces.

The Guardian’s report did not indicate that a court has yet ruled on the merits of the dispute over the account closure. It also did not characterize any judicial finding of wrongdoing, and the details of what the 2021 review encompassed were not described beyond the reported assertion that anti-money-laundering experts were part of the assessment.