Sanctioned by EU. Abandoned by Switzerland | Nathalie Yamb

## Intro & Reasons for Sanctions The episode at the heart of this conversation exposes how contemporary sanctions regimes have migrated from a narrow tool of foreign policy into a blunt instrument that can reshape an individual’s life overnight. The sanctions applied by the European Union, originally intended to punish state actors and alter state behavior, now sweep in activists, journalists, and citizens of third countries whose work challenges prevailing geopolitical orthodoxies. The case discussed in the recording shows how a sanctions decision predicated on alleged “pro‑Russian activities” can be used to silence critiques of Western influence in Africa, producing consequences that go far beyond travel restrictions: frozen finances, digital de‑platforming, and the withdrawal of ordinary consular protections. The conversation reveals a pattern: the justificatory language of sanctions often masks political discomfort with dissenting voices. In this instance, the official motive cited is opposition to perceived French or Western interests in Africa — a stance the EU labeled as alignment with Russia — and that label becomes a legal pretext to cut someone off from the global financial and digital economy. What appears to be a measure targeted at international security instead functions as a mechanism for enforcing conformity in the public sphere. ## Financial De- platforming & Frozen Assets One of the most immediate and punitive effects described in the discussion is financial de‑platforming. Swiss bank accounts were frozen and then closed, credit cards disabled, crypto accounts shuttered, and payment apps restricted. The practical outcome is stark: automated app payments that appear successful, but never clear; wires that vanish; and bank communications that stop explaining why. For someone who runs online channels and relies on digital income streams, the effect is economically devastating. The narrative illustrates how sanctions regimes cascade through correspondent banking networks. Even banks with no direct legal obligation to apply EU measures do so preemptively, invoking de‑risking to avoid entanglement with European regulators. African banks explained closures by pointing to European correspondent relationships. International payment platforms and booking services went further: companies headquartered outside the EU voluntarily complied with the EU listing to avoid perceived legal risk, canceling transactions and refusing services even when payments and itineraries did not pass through European jurisdiction. The result is an asymmetric enforcement landscape in which private-sector compliance amplifies state measures, often with no transparency or effective remedy for the affected person. ## Travel Bans & Notification of Sanctions The conversation makes clear that the information flows around sanctions are opaque and often one‑way. The sanctioned individual learned about their designation through an online gazette rather than direct notification; their first awareness came from a Google search prompted by concerned messages. Official practice here matters. Publication in an official register meets the legal requirement for notice, but it leaves those affected in the dark until their name surfaces publicly. There is no prior hearing, no opportunity to contest evidence before rights are curtailed. Moreover, the technical definition of jurisdiction that many modern sanctions instruments employ extends to airspace, effectively cutting off aerial corridors as well as territorial entry. That means boarding an aircraft that crosses a given jurisdiction’s airspace can be legally fraught for carriers, and airlines and ticketing platforms are incentivized to deny service to listed persons. The fiscal and logistical downstream effects make return travel to one’s country of nationality a hazardous gamble: even when the right to return exists on paper, the practical ability to exercise it is constrained by the willingness of third parties — airlines, booking platforms, and banks — to facilitate transit. ## Refusal of Consular Assistance & Surveillance Perhaps most striking is the recorded experience of being abandoned by one’s own diplomatic services. When consular assistance is refused, the protective scaffold of citizenship—emergency repatriation, legal support, and rapid crisis intervention—collapses. The conversation recounts direct requests for consular help that were denied, with diplomats advising the person to seek redress from the very foreign institutions that imposed the sanctions. This refusal raises difficult questions about states’ duties to their citizens when those citizens are accused by multilateral bodies. The recording also hints at a surveillance component. Requests for data from governmental archives produced heavily redacted files; the documents revealed correspondence between diplomatic posts and foreign ministries discussing the individual’s situation. The implication is that diplomatic channels are used not only to coordinate response to alleged misconduct but also to manage reputational and political fallout. For activists and journalists operating transnationally, this combination of surveillance and diplomatic non‑assistance transforms routine state interactions into potential vectors for political reprisal. ## Legal Recourse & The Judicial Trap The legal architecture of sanctions often erects procedural barriers that prevent meaningful redress. The conversation underlines how decisions are taken and published without immediate notification to the person affected, and how the mechanisms for contestation are slow, technical, and costly. Even when legal teams engage, banks and platforms can act preemptively — closing accounts, canceling services — leaving the sanctioned person to litigate after their life has already been destabilized. This creates a “judicial trap”: by the time a court reviews the legality of a sanctions listing or an associated bank closure, the practical harm has already occurred. Financial injunctions and interim relief may be available, but they require resources and access to legal institutions that a de‑banked, de‑platformed person may lack. The judicial remedies that do exist assume a level playing field — immediate notice, access to evidence, and the ability to participate in proceedings — which is frequently absent. The result is a system where procedural formality substitutes for substantive fairness. ## Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) & Banking Another technical mechanism compounding the problem is the broadening interpretation of “politically exposed persons” (PEPs) and related due diligence rules. Banks increasingly apply PEP and anti‑money‑laundering frameworks expansively, treating outspoken activists and well‑known commentators as reputational risks. The conversation highlights cases where non‑political transactions were refused simply because other banks in the payment chain declined to accept funds from an account associated with a sanctioned individual. This ripple effect shows how private compliance cultures reproduce regulatory objectives beyond legal compulsion. Where regulators have signaled scrutiny, banks and payment processors interpret risk conservatively. The practical effect is that anyone flagged by a sanctions list or by perceived proximity to controversial actors can find their access to banking services curtailed, regardless of the transactions’ legality or legitimacy. For people whose livelihoods depend on cross‑border payments or digital monetization, being treated as a PEP is de facto economic ostracism. ## Psychological Impact & Support Systems The human consequences extend beyond the financial and legal. The conversation conveys an acute psychological toll: disorientation, anxiety, and the sense of being cut off from everyday social infrastructure. Losing access to digital platforms, payment systems, and the ability to travel produces a cascade of stres

Sanctioned by EU. Abandoned by Switzerland Fifty-nine individuals are by now sanctioned by the European Union in pursuit of punishing Russia for the War in Ukraine. Many of them are Russian citizens but more and more the EU is putting its own citizens and those of third states on this list, for reasons that have often little to do with Russia. One of them is my compatriot, Nathalie Yamb, who was in fact the first Swiss Citizen to be included on the list, back already in June 2025. Links: Nathalie's YouTube channel: @nathyamb Neutrality Studies substack: https://pascallottaz.substack.com Goods Store: https://neutralitystudies-shop. fourthwall.com Timestamps: 00:00:00 Intro & Reasons for Sanctions 00:03:04 Financial De- platforming & Frozen Assets 00:12:46 Travel Bans & Notification of Sanctions 00:17:51 Refusal of Consular Assistance & Surveillance 00:27:12 Legal Recourse & The Judicial Trap 00:36:20 Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) & Banking 00:41:49 Psychological Impact & Support Systems 00:43:40 Advice for Survival & Digital Sovereignty #Pascal Fifty-nine individuals are now sanctioned by the European Union in its effort to punish Russia for the war in Ukraine. Many of them aren’t Russian citizens, though. More and more, the EU is putting its own citizens and those of third states on the sanctions list for reasons that often have very little to do with Russia itself. One of them is my compatriot, Nathalie Yamb, who was, in fact, the first Swiss citizen to be included on the sanctions list, back in June 2025. She joins us today. Nathalie, welcome. #Nathalie Yamb Hello, thank you for having me. #Pascal Well, thank you very much for coming online. You’re actually also a YouTuber — you have your own channel and you’re quite popular on social media, especially within the Francophone and African- centered world, because you’re also, I mean, Cameroonian. I think your mother is Swiss and your father is Cameroonian, right? Thank you. And you’ve actually been barred from entering France for quite a while because of your anti-colonial activism. And now, in June, they put you on that sanctions list. Can you tell us what happened to you and why you think it happened? #Nathalie Yamb -- 1 of 20 -- First of all, thank you, Pascal, for having me. Yes, indeed, I upgraded my “sanctions catalogue” by being included on the list of people sanctioned by the European Council for so-called pro-Russian activities — which is, I guess, the most popular and easiest reason they find to put people on the sanctions list. As you said, I’m actually known for my work on sovereignty, African sovereignty, African emancipation, and things like that. I’ve never really entered the Russia-Ukraine crisis, except when it came to showing the false narrative or the hypocrisy of the international order in relation to what’s happening in Africa. But they wrote in the sanctions statement that I’m busy evicting France and the West out of Africa. That’s what’s written in the motives. #Pascal I read it today. It actually says, “Oh, she’s against France in Africa.” #Nathalie Yamb Yes, exactly. And that’s the main reason I’ve been put on that list. Apparently, if you have friends outside of Africa, according to the European Council, you must be a Russian agent — which is quite strange, in a sense. But the consequences are heavy, I must say. The consequences of being on that list. At the very beginning, I didn’t take it very seriously because, as you mentioned, I was already sanctioned by France three years earlier. I was banned from entering or transiting through French territories. I didn’t mind, because I never went to France. I’m fighting France, so I’m not eager to go there. So it didn’t bother me at the time, and I thought that Switzerland, not being part of the EU, would not affect me — that the EU sanctions wouldn’t affect me. But I was totally wrong, because Switzerland is in the middle — physically, geographically — it’s in the middle of Europe, surrounded by EU countries. And also, Switzerland has a government and companies that are eager to follow the instructions of Brussels, apparently. I thought we were a neutral country, but I experienced otherwise. So the consequences were quite heavy. From one day to the next, I started getting my credit cards canceled, my bank accounts closed, my crypto accounts closed. #Pascal Your Swiss bank accounts were closed. Because again, Swiss banks are under Swiss law. Did they give you a reason why they closed them? And did they close them, or did they freeze your funds? I mean, did they at least say, like, “Hey, where can we wire the money to?” #Nathalie Yamb No, both, I would say. I only have bank accounts in Switzerland. I have no bank accounts whatsoever in the European Union. My only accounts were in Switzerland and in Africa. One of the -- 2 of 20 -- banks decided to first freeze my accounts. I had one in Swiss francs and one in euros. They froze both of them, and then they decided to close the accounts without giving any reason. I even had my lawyer write to them and ask for an explanation—why the payments I was making for my rent, my insurance, my health insurance, and things like that were being blocked. I would execute the payments in the app, but they wouldn’t go through in real life. So my lawyer started getting in touch with them. When my lawyer did that, they completely closed the account— completely. They’re still keeping my euros somewhere there, but I have no access to the app anymore, no bank account anymore. They keep my money. They’ve closed the account, so it’s frozen. #Pascal It’s frozen. The account is closed. #Nathalie Yamb I don’t know where my money is. They completely closed my account. #Pascal But they gave you a letter saying, “This money is still with us”? #Nathalie Yamb They sent me a letter before closing the account, saying, “Okay, tell us where we can wire the money.” So I gave them the only account I still have in Switzerland that isn’t blocked or frozen. They wired the Swiss amount to that account, but the euro amount has vanished—it was never sent—and they’re not willing to respond. #Pascal They stole it. That's outrageous—it's even worse. That's stealing. I mean, if they froze it, it would still be yours. #Nathalie Yamb They stole it. Yes, they really stole it. #Pascal And the other account? -- 3 of 20 -- #Nathalie Yamb The other account is with PostFinance, which, as you know, almost every Swiss citizen has an account with. They froze the euro account and kept the Swiss account, but with limitations. I can’t access Twint anymore—every Swiss citizen would know what that is. It’s a mobile payment app, and everybody uses Twint nowadays. Also, the credit card has been disabled. It’s limited to only certain payments I can make. And what’s worse is that even other banks—the ones I’m not a client of— refuse payments. For example, UBS, which is the bank where my rent is sent because my landlord has an account there, would refuse a payment coming from my PostFinance account to pay my rent. #Pascal So even internal Swiss transactions are being refused. #Nathalie Yamb Absolutely, they’re being refused. Yes, completely. So that’s the very beginning of your nightmare. And if you’re abroad when it happens and you don’t have any credit cards, you don’t have any means of payment, and if you don’t have cash with you, then you’re lost—completely lost. And then you get cut off on every platform. You get cut out of Airbnb, you get cut out of—what do you call it— Google, Amazon. #Pascal Your Gmail account was shut down. #Nathalie Yamb I was demonetized. My channels were completely demonetized right away. #Pascal YouTube. #Nathalie Yamb With YouTube, yes. The wiring address was my Swiss account. So, since one part of the sanction is the freezing of your assets, the other part is the ban on entering, transiting, or flying over European territory. And the third sanction is the interdiction—it’s forbidden for anyone to provide services or funds to a sanctioned person. So any business accepting your money would risk infringing the sanctions. People are just choosing to close everything, you know. And it becomes very difficult because even companies, like airlines, can refuse to take you as a passenger. -- 4 of 20 -- #Pascal But Google is a U.S. company, and it’s headquartered in—well, it’s headquartered in Ireland, yeah, which is in the European Union. #Nathalie Yamb Yeah. But I had an experience last week with Expedia—Expedia being an American company based in the U.S. I tried to buy a flight ticket that was completely outside of Europe—the departure and arrival were both outside, never going over European territory or anything. They took the money, and then they wrote back to me saying they were unable to proceed with the ticket. So they said they’d return the money to the card it came from. Then they asked me, “Okay, do you want us to book you a new ticket now that we’re on the phone?” I said, “Okay, let’s do it.” So they did the transaction. They booked me a new ticket. I paid for it, they sent it, and 24 hours later I received two emails from Expedia saying it’s impossible for them to do business with people who are sanctioned. I’m not sanctioned—I’m not sanctioned in the U.S.; I’m sanctioned in the European Union. The ticket was for a destination and a flight completely outside both the U.S. and the EU. And still, they refused. They said, “No, we’re not proceeding. We’re canceling the flight, and you’re not getting the money back.” I’ll send you the email after the recording—you’ll see it. #Pascal It's quite incredible. And that's Expedia—that's not even the airline doing it. #Nathalie Yamb It's not the airline. It's Expedia writing to me, telling me they can’t proceed, even though I'm not sanctioned in the United States. It’s an American company based in America, and the ticket was for a client outside the European Union. #Pascal So this is the long arm of the European common market, because any company that wants to make sure they have zero problems just voluntarily implements the sanctions, even if they don’t have to. It’ s like their due diligence department or their in-house lawyers probably recommend doing that, and then they just proceed. So, have you been able to fly? #Nathalie Yamb Same as with the African banks. -- 5 of 20 -- #Pascal Do they also block the two flights? #Nathalie Yamb Yes, yes. And I was surprised. I was like, “Right, in Africa, why do you want to close my account?” And then they said, “Oh, you know, we have correspondent bankers in Europe, and we don’t want to have any problems.” So were all of your accounts closed? Those are the ones in Africa? I’m still left with one. I won’t tell the name of the bank, because maybe they would then have problems. But I’m left with one account in Africa and a limited account with PostFinance. #Pascal Wow, that’s absolutely horrible. How about flying? I mean, do airlines let you board? Have you been able to fly since you were sanctioned? #Nathalie Yamb I've been able to fly, but you run the risk of airlines saying they don't want you as a passenger because you're on the list. You know, everything is connected — they type it in at the airport. I'm lucky because I stopped using European airlines a long time ago. When it’s not necessary, I always use other airlines, not European ones. So for now, it’s okay. I don’t know how it would be if I had to, for example, fly over European airspace with an airline. Maybe they’d consider accepting me as a client, but not on that route, not on that itinerary, because it flies over European space. I haven’t experienced that yet. Let’s see. #Pascal But this brings me to my next question. I mean, as a Swiss citizen, you have the right to return home. That's a fundamental right in international law. To my knowledge, it's a human right to return to the state whose passport you hold, the one you're a citizen of. And you haven’t been able to go back, have yo