Laurent Mosar (Member of Parliament): Challenges and Opportunities in Luxembourg
Laurent Mosar, Member of Parliament, City Council Member, and lawyer, shares his views on banking regulation, Revolut’s missed opportunity, and financial sanctions shaping Luxembourg’s reputation.
What does Rothschild’s €25 million fine signify for the country’s financial centre?
It might represent bad news for Rothschild, but I consider it excellent news for Luxembourg. This case marks a milestone, the first time a major international bank receives such a significant penalty in the country. For years, some critics claimed Luxembourg was only good at implementing regulations without ever taking strong action. This ruling proves the contrary. It highlights that accountability applies to all actors in the financial sector, regardless of their size or prestige. The judiciary did its work without exception. This decision reinforces trust in the system. A robust reputation depends not only on compliance with regulations but also on the credible enforcement of those rules. When a jurisdiction imposes a €25 million fine on a prominent bank, it sends a powerful message: no one escapes scrutiny. Financial centres must not only follow rules but demonstrate the will and capacity to sanction breaches. This judgment proves that Luxembourg can act decisively. I welcome this evolution and remain thankful to the judicial system for its role in preserving the integrity of our financial sector.
​
“I am now a member of the new majority. This does not mean I have lost my principles and convictions”
​
​
Why did Revolut prefer Paris over Luxembourg, and what lesson emerges from this?
It remains hard to know what exactly happened when Revolut first engaged with Luxembourg’s authorities. They explored the option of establishing a presence here and entered into discussions with the CSSF. Ultimately, they opted for Lithuania to obtain their licence. More recently, Revolut announced a €1 billion investment in France. That news sparked numerous messages from people asking why Luxembourg did not secure this opportunity. Revolut performs well here, with 75,000 account holders and a trajectory that might reach 100,000 by the end of the year. This market clearly demands modern banking options. Luxembourg missed a chance. I do not believe the CSSF bears responsibility; they did their job. However, political leaders must reflect on why Paris proved more attractive. The question deserves attention. Strategic thinking about future investors and fintech developments should not be limited to regulatory aspects alone. It also involves positioning, vision, and ambition. When such a major player chooses another capital despite local success, one must ask why and how to avoid similar decisions in the future. I find this development frustrating.
​
How to address the growing issue of banking access in Luxembourg?
For over two years, I have defended the principle that every company must be able to open a bank account. The situation still does not improve. Some banks claim over-regulation forces them to restrict access, yet other factors might play a role. ING, for example, closed thousands of accounts, forcing many entrepreneurs to seek alternatives. Existing initiatives from the CSSF, ABBL, and government remain insufficient. Recently, I shared a letter on LinkedIn from the Dutch Minister of Finance urging banks to apply a purely risk-based approach. Luxembourg could adopt the same logic. Most clients do not represent risks. Banks must serve the broader economy, not solely pursue maximum profits. A functioning economy cannot allow startups, independents, or funds to operate without access to basic financial services. The issue affects more than just innovation—it impacts day-to-day business. If banks turn their backs on economic actors, the consequences go far beyond inconvenience. Minister Roth, whom I greatly appreciate, should consider drafting a similar message directed at our national banks, encouraging a more open and pragmatic attitude toward account accessibility.