Serbia’s National Bank (NBS) revoked ALTA Bank’s operating license after determining that its financial condition had deteriorated and could worsen further. The central bank said the action was taken to protect depositors and creditors, while emphasizing that ALTA represented only about 3% of the country’s banking market.¹

The NBS said the broader sector was “stable, well-capitalized and highly liquid,” and that all insured deposits would be protected up to €50,000 per depositor. The Deposit Insurance Agency has sufficient funds, officials said, and will announce the bank through which payments will be made after the formal bankruptcy decision.¹

The immediate consequences for customers are divided. Insured deposits belonging to individuals, entrepreneurs and small and medium-sized companies are covered up to the legal limit, regardless of the number of accounts. Payments are expected to begin no later than seven working days after the Belgrade Commercial Court formally opens bankruptcy proceedings.² Borrowers, however, must continue paying housing, cash and other loans. If another bank takes over ALTA’s loan portfolio, customers will receive new payment instructions; otherwise, repayment will continue under the bankruptcy administration.²

Authorities in neighboring countries also moved against related ALTA entities. North Macedonia imposed temporary administration on ALTA Bank’s Bitola branch and limited weekly withdrawals after roughly €2 million was withdrawn in one day. Montenegro separately revoked the payment-services license of Alta Pay Group.³

The response has also prompted scrutiny. ALTA owner Davor Macura was detained several days after the Serbian license revocation, while banking officials and economists questioned why action came when liquidity problems allegedly had existed for “months and years.”⁴ Four NBS vice-governors reportedly asked prosecutors to examine the regulator’s decision and possible criminal responsibility, while prosecutors sought transaction records amid allegations of money transfers abroad. NBS denied claims that funds were being moved overseas and filed a criminal complaint against the bank and several responsible individuals.⁴

The central dispute is therefore not whether insured depositors will be protected, but whether regulatory intervention came early enough and whether the bank’s underlying problems were adequately detected.