Controversy Over Delayed Remittances from Saudi Arabia to UAE Grows

Reports have emerged that some bank remittances and electronic payments from Saudi Arabia to the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been delayed or rejected, escalating regulatory controversies surrounding the flow of funds in the Gulf region. The Saudi Central Bank denied any direct restrictions by country, but there have been instances of circumvention in corporate payments.

PYMNTS, citing Bloomberg, reported that bank remittances and electronic payments from Saudi Arabia to the UAE have been partially blocked in recent weeks, causing issues for businesses and individuals. The Saudi Central Bank (SAMA) stated to Bloomberg, "There are no direct restrictions on specific countries, and banks consistently apply risk-based measures to all transactions to protect the integrity of the financial system." A UAE official mentioned that they had not received any complaints regarding related delays from private enterprises.

The crux of the issue lies in distinguishing between official restrictions and actual payment friction. Crypto Briefing reported that the Saudi Central Bank has applied additional scrutiny to financial transfers to the UAE, although this directive has not been confirmed by any publicly available official documents. Conversely, several reports since July have included testimonies of delays in corporate payments within the UAE.

Skift reported that some travel agencies in the UAE have experienced delays in remittances from Saudi corporate clients. A representative from a Dubai travel agency stated that payments from Saudi financial sector corporate clients have been delayed by about a month, and some airline ticket bookings were processed through direct payments from customers to airlines. The same report also mentioned that some platforms and travel agencies believe that 90-95% of payments from Saudi customers are being processed normally.

The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) classifies countries and regions with strategic deficiencies in their anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems as subject to "increased monitoring." Countries on the so-called gray list are required to undergo checks on their implementation of improvement plans, but FATF standards demand a risk-based approach rather than a blanket ban on entire customer groups.

FATF removed the UAE from the increased monitoring list in February 2024. In the same document, FATF explained that while a risk-based approach is required, a blanket ban on entire customer groups does not meet the standards.

The UAE Central Bank also stated in an updated document on February 4, 2026, that the UAE had been removed from the FATF gray list in February 2024. This document explained that the UAE has been strengthening its anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing systems.

Regulations from the Saudi Central Bank require enhanced due diligence for high-risk customers and transactions related to countries vulnerable to money laundering and terrorist financing. While there are separate provisions for customer verification obligations and risk-based management, there is no confirmation in the public regulations that specifically identifies the UAE as a country for blocking remittances.

Risk-based assessments in the banking sector operate by requiring additional verification based on factors such as counterparty, source of funds, transaction purpose, and jurisdictional risks. Even in the absence of official sanctions or remittance bans, if individual banks strengthen their internal criteria, corporate payments may experience delays during documentation, re-examination, or intermediary bank processes.

This issue has arisen amid a competitive dynamic between Saudi Arabia and the UAE over financial, tourism, and logistics hubs. The UAE's state news agency WAM reported that the UAE will withdraw from OPEC and OPEC+ starting May 1, 2026. While changes in the energy cooperation framework and corporate payment friction are separate issues, market sensitivity regarding the relationship between the two countries has increased.

From a corporate perspective, the more pressing issue is not whether remittances have been blocked, but whether the predictability of payments has been disrupted. Travel agencies and service providers face challenges in transactions where timing is crucial, such as airline ticket issuance, accommodation bookings, and corporate settlements, as delays in bank reviews may require them to alter reservation structures or request direct payments from customers.

On the other hand, the explanations from the Saudi Central Bank and UAE officials draw a line against interpretations suggesting institutional barriers. The Saudi Central Bank denied any direct restrictions by country, and UAE officials stated they had not received complaints regarding abnormal delays from private enterprises. This indicates a gap between official regulations and on-the-ground experiences.

For domestic companies and investors, this issue exemplifies the operational risks of payment networks in the Gulf region. The UAE is often utilized as a financial and logistics hub for Middle Eastern businesses, while Saudi Arabia is a key market for large projects and energy transactions. Compliance standards and intermediary bank review times can be reflected as costs in corporate payments traversing between the two regions.

Based on the currently confirmed facts, it is difficult to conclude that remittances to the UAE have become subject to official sanctions. However, given the delays and circumvention in some corporate transactions, there are actual friction points arising from varying intensities of bank reviews in Gulf region corporate payments and travel/service payments.