How Banks Are Navigating Sanctions, Fragmented Regulation and Geopolitical Whiplash

display-sc-embed-code-here

The panel makes clear that geopolitical risk has not changed—only the speed and intensity have. With instantaneous information, divergent sanctions regimes, and crises unfolding in hours rather than months, banks can no longer rely on static playbooks. As Arjun Ahluwalia notes, sanctions are now lifted as quickly as they are imposed, creating a new challenge: re‑entry. Exiting a market is binary; re‑entering requires rebuilding weakened infrastructure, recalibrating risk appetite, and navigating public perception. Meanwhile, Stefano Biondi emphasises that the real question is not the narrative of the crisis but how it affects a bank’s specific risk factors - liquidity, capital, macro exposures, and reputational risk.

The discussion also highlights the end of the siloed approach to geopolitical and sanctions risk. Fragmented regulatory regimes mean that what is permissible in New York may be prohibited in Brussels or London, forcing banks to manage sanctions jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction rather than relying on a single dominant authority. Adam Oyebanji stresses that most failures stem from people, not systems, and that organisations must ensure open communication, clear decision‑makers, and a deep understanding of “who to call” when crises hit. In a world where AI accelerates information but cannot replace judgement, the panel’s message is simple but powerful: resilience depends on people who can interpret complexity, avoid overreaction, and make informed decisions under pressure.