All accounts blocked
Fintech holds protective vest startup for weapons suppliers
1/3/2023 5:22 p.m
Startup Bullettproof Ukraine makes bulletproof vests for volunteers and journalists. Founder Madina Katter can no longer settle outstanding accounts. The payment service provider has blocked your company’s business account.
The British payment service provider Wise has blocked the business account of the startup Bulletproof Ukraine. “We do not support transactions related to weapons, military and paramilitary goods and services,” says an email shared by Berlin-based founder Madina Katter on Linkedin. The reasoning suggests that the payment service provider classified the startup as an armaments producer.
Until recently, the company, founded in February 2022, manufactured bulletproof weapons for volunteers and journalists in Ukraine. According to the company, around 600 bulletproof vests have been sold since March 2022.
The startup recently ceased operations. However, there are still outstanding bills to be paid. Until the startup finds a new financial service provider, the account suspension jeopardizes the last delivery of protective vests. “It won’t be that easy to find a suitable provider,” says Katter to the industry portal “Gründerszene”. After all, many financial institutions and investors shy away from putting money into companies that deal with war and the military.
So far, Wise has not made any concrete statements
The 26-year-old clearly rejects the accusation. Your company does not supply bulletproof vests to the military, only to civilian aid organizations and journalists in Ukraine. “We’re not fueling the war, if some people think so,” Katter told the portal. “People who do humanitarian work in crisis areas need protection. Our bulletproof vests ensure their safety.” In addition, check your startup in so-called background checks whether a person or organization is who they claim to be.
The financial service provider has not yet commented on the specific case. When asked by the “Tagesspiegel”, a spokesman only referred to the general guidelines. He therefore further admitted that in certain activities it is particularly difficult for the company to determine the intended use of the service or product offered. Such a decision could be reviewed again during an appeals process “to ensure that we are pursuing a consistent and fair approach.”