Arival Bank Lands on OpenSanctions… Just a Coincidence?

• Revised and Edited on 11 February 2025

Of Sanctions, Shareholders, and the Curious Silence of Minority Investors

Ah, the life of a minority shareholder—the fine art of being theoretically important but practically invisible. My journey with Arival Bank Pte Ltd has been an exercise in patience, optimism, and—ultimately—disbelief.

For years, I asked reasonable questions—first privately, then at AGMs and EGMs, and finally, when those went unanswered, in public. I sought clarity on the bank’s ownership, governance, and potential risks. Surely, in a world where compliance is king, these should be fair questions, right?

But the response? Silence. The kind of silence that makes one wonder: ?? Why did the new majority shareholders refuse to engage with investors openly? ?? Why was transparency treated like an inconvenience rather than a necessity? ?? Could there be risks that they preferred not to disclose?

Then, something rather unexpected happened—Arival appeared on OpenSanctions. A coincidence? Maybe. An unfortunate misunderstanding? Possibly. But considering my prior concerns, I can’t help but wonder:

?? What led to this inclusion? ?? Who, if anyone, is accountable? ?? Will this affect investors, partners, and the bank’s long-term prospects?

To be clear: I am not making accusations. I am raising questions that remain unanswered.

A Leadership of “Turnarounds” and Unanswered Questions

Since the new majority shareholders took over, Arival’s trajectory has been... unconventional. A once-promising fintech, celebrated for its compliance-first approach, now finds itself in an uncertain position.

Some might say the new leadership has engaged in a "bold restructuring." Others might argue that cost-cutting and strategic shifts have been more erratic than strategic. The truth? Hard to tell—because transparency is in short supply.

One particularly puzzling episode was the termination of the De*l acquisition deal. Investors were told different things: ?? At first, it was implied that De*l’s offer wasn’t good enough. ?? Later, the narrative changed—suggesting the bank was too valuable to sell, yet somehow struggling financially.

So, which is it? Was the bank too valuable to offload, or too weak to survive without drastic measures?

What Happens Next?

Arival’s situation presents more questions than answers: ?? If the bank is thriving under new management, why the lack of transparency? ?? If governance is solid, why the resistance to addressing concerns? ?? If regulatory compliance is a priority, why does OpenSanctions list Arival at all?

None of these are accusations. They are questions any responsible investor should ask.

Meanwhile, some have suggested that raising these issues publicly is unprofessional. I disagree. In a world where financial misconduct often hides behind complexity, public scrutiny is sometimes the only accountability mechanism left.

I would love to be wrong. If any of these concerns are unfounded, I welcome clarifications, corrections, and transparency from Arival’s leadership. After all, if there’s nothing to hide, why not set the record straight?

I remain hopeful—but skeptical.

Disclaimer

This material is not intended to accuse any individual or assess their reputation. I raise open questions based on reasonable doubt stemming from publicly available information. If any party mentioned here wishes to clarify, correct, or refute any points, I welcome transparency. My goal is simple: ensuring investors have access to the truth.

?? Contact me at [email protected] if you have any insights to share.