The incident highlights how offshore‑bank rankings can trigger legal push‑back from the institutions being listed, even when the coverage is positive.
Background
- A recent article titled “The Best Offshore Banks for 2018 (Even for US Citizens)” listed several banks, including AM Area Bank, a commercial bank based in Armenia.
- The author, while on his honeymoon in Mauritius, received an email from the bank’s corporate communications department requesting the removal of any reference to the bank.
The bank’s legal threat
The email, signed by the Head of Corporate Communication and Social Responsibility, contained several key points:
- The bank expressed concern that being labeled an “offshore bank” carries a negative perception that could cause reputational damage.
- It stated that the bank does not develop non‑resident client relationships and that it focuses on local and regional markets.
- The bank demanded that the author remove all references to AM Area Bank immediately and warned that failure to do so could lead to legal action.
- The notice concluded with a standard clause: “without any waiver of our rights to pursue the process further in case the bank suffers any reputational or other damages.”
Author’s initial response
- The author replied with an out‑of‑office autoresponder, forwarded the request to his Armenian lawyer, and instructed his team to delete the positive mention.
- He also sent a strongly worded reply to the bank, calling the threat “appalling” and indicating that he would cease sending any further clients to the bank.
Follow‑up apology
Approximately ten days later, a second email arrived from the Head of Quality Assurance at the bank:
- The bank apologized for the tone of the previous message, acknowledging that the wording may have seemed threatening.
- It reiterated that the bank does not intend to sue and expressed warm wishes for the author’s marriage.
- The email suggested a possible meeting to discuss cooperation, noting that the bank’s target customer profile does not align with the author’s audience, which focuses heavily on offshore citizenship and banking.
Why the dispute matters for content creators
- Reputational risk: Even positive mentions can be perceived as damaging if a bank wants to distance itself from the “offshore” label.
- Legal pressure: Banks may use formal legal language to compel removal of content, citing potential defamation or reputational harm.
- Strategic silence: Many banks prefer low‑profile client acquisition and may request that influencers or writers avoid public endorsement.
- Content strategy: Creators covering offshore finance often omit specific bank names to avoid backlash, limiting the practical value of their recommendations for audiences seeking concrete options.
Practical takeaways
- Verify bank policies before publishing: Some institutions explicitly prohibit public references, especially in the offshore sector.
- Document communications: Keep copies of all correspondence in case a dispute escalates.
- Consult legal counsel: A brief review by a lawyer familiar with the jurisdiction (e.g., Armenian law) can clarify exposure.
- Consider anonymity: When discussing sensitive financial services, using generic descriptions may reduce the risk of legal challenges.
- Balance transparency and safety: While audiences benefit from specific recommendations, creators must weigh that against potential legal and reputational repercussions.
