By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 28/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
A “business model mismatch” flag is usually triggered when observed account activity doesn’t align with what the business said it does (industry, revenue model, typical customers, payment types, locations, or volumes).
On Tide, this can surface through routine security reviews and lead to requests for clarification and supporting evidence, and sometimes temporary pauses or limits while information is assessed.
The key operational risk is not the label itself, but the knock-on effects:
- Held outbound payments
- Delayed international transfers
- Limits on cards or transfers
- Time spent assembling proof that activity is consistent with the underlying trade
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What “business model mismatch” means on Tide
A “mismatch” is less about a single transaction and more about pattern recognition. Providers build an expected activity profile from onboarding information and ongoing monitoring. If later activity looks inconsistent – by type, size, counterparties, geography, or speed – an account can be selected for review.
Tide is explicit that it conducts account reviews and that these checks may consider “how [accounts] make their money”, “the industries they operate in”, and whether business details have changed, sometimes requesting more information and potentially pausing the account during review (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
For the underlying banking-wide mechanism (including why merchant category codes can matter for card flows), see Business model mismatch and MCCs explained.
Why mismatch flags exist
Ongoing monitoring is a core control, not an optional extra
UK financial crime controls rely heavily on ongoing monitoring: providers are expected to scrutinise transactions through the business relationship and keep customer information up to date, especially where behaviour changes.
HMRC’s Economic Crime Supervision Handbook describes ongoing monitoring in practical terms, including consistency with a firm’s knowledge of the customer, their business, and risk profile (ECSH33375 – Ongoing monitoring).
Industry guidance also frames this as activity monitoring that is risk-based and designed to identify unusual or uncharacteristic behaviour, including scrutiny of transactions across time (JMLSG Part I Chapter 5.7 Monitoring customer activity). For the broader context and up-to-date guidance library, see JMLSG Current Guidance.
“Mismatch” can be about eligibility as well as risk
A second layer is product eligibility. Some providers only support certain business types, transaction profiles, or use-cases under their terms. If activity indicates the business is operating outside eligibility assumptions (even if legitimate), a review may be triggered to confirm whether the account remains suitable for the service (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
Common “mismatch” patterns that can trigger a Tide review
These are typical pattern-level triggers – what matters is the gap between “expected” and “observed”, especially where multiple signals stack up.
1) Sudden changes in volume, velocity, or seasonality
If an account that previously had low turnover shifts quickly to high-frequency receipts or large-value transfers, monitoring may treat that as a profile change requiring re-checking. The trigger is often the rate of change, not the absolute amount.
2) Pass-through cashflow shapes (money in > money out)
Accounts that look like they primarily receive funds and rapidly send them onward – especially to new counterparties – can resemble intermediary or “flow-through” activity. Reviews commonly ask what economic purpose sits behind the movement and how it relates to trading.
3) Counterparty drift: who pays and who gets paid
A shift from retail customers to overseas corporate payers (or vice versa), or from paying suppliers to paying lots of unrelated third parties, can be treated as a material change. This often overlaps with “who is the underlying client” questions and whether payments are on behalf of others.
4) Card settlements and category inconsistencies
If a business receives card settlement flows that don’t match the described goods/services (or the operational footprint), that can create a mismatch narrative.
Where card payments are involved, there can also be a second actor in the chain (a payment processor), which affects what can be paused and by whom. The “payments chain” context is covered in Merchant account vs EMI balance vs bank balance.
5) International corridors, high-friction geographies, or new FX behaviour
Cross-border transfers can add complexity: new recipient countries, unusual payment references, or mismatched invoice locations can trigger additional screening and review steps. For the Tide-specific operational impact, see Tide international payments held for review.
6) Business model drift vs stated revenue model
A move from “services” to “marketplace”, “agency”, “import/export”, “crypto-adjacent payments”, or “client money handling” can change the risk and eligibility profile. This is often where providers ask for evidence of what is being sold, to whom, and on what contractual basis.
7) Source-of-funds questions triggered by change, not suspicion
Where incoming funds don’t resemble prior trading receipts – or large credits arrive from unexpected sources – providers may ask for explanations and documentation that connects receipts to trading or other legitimate sources. The Tide-specific angle is covered in Tide source of funds checks.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Turnover rises sharply within days/weeks | Profile change flagged | Additional questions; possible temporary limits while reviewed |
| Incoming funds from new payer types (e.g., overseas corporates) | Counterparty drift flagged | Delays to outbound payments until economic purpose is understood |
| Money in then rapid onward transfers | Flow-through pattern flagged | Request for contracts/invoices; potential payment holds |
| First-time international payments to new corridors | Enhanced scrutiny | Transfers may be held pending checks; supplier deadlines can be missed |
| Card settlement activity appears inconsistent | Category mismatch narrative | Processor queries may run in parallel; potential payout delays |
| New activity suggesting agency/marketplace behaviour | Eligibility re-assessment | Requests to evidence revenue model and customer/supplier relationships |
| Change in owners/directors/PSCs coincides with activity shift | Reverification triggered | ID/ownership checks plus trading evidence requested |
| Large single credits without clear trading link | Source-of-funds review | Requests for bank statements/invoices; possible temporary restrictions |
What may pause during a Tide mismatch review
Operational outcomes vary by account type, transaction rail, and the specific control being applied. Tide’s own explanation of routine reviews notes that it may pause the account during review and that reviews may take time depending on complexity (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
In practice, “pause” can mean any combination of: outbound transfer limits, blocked beneficiaries, delayed international payments, card limits, or restrictions on creating new payments – while inbound receipts may still be possible in some cases.
For a Tide-specific walkthrough of what “under review” can look like, see Tide account under review stages and the “what still works” angle in Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works.
What evidence is commonly requested (and why it can repeat)
“Mismatch” reviews tend to converge on a simple question: does the observed activity make sense for the stated business model? That usually translates into repeatable evidence categories:
Trading reality: invoices, contracts, purchase orders, delivery/fulfilment proof, and customer communications.
Business footprint: website/app listings, marketing channels, terms of sale, supplier agreements.
Cashflow trail: statements showing where funds came from and where they went, tying receipts to trading or other legitimate sources.
Ownership/control alignment: confirming who benefits and who controls decisions when activity changes.
Tide-specific document patterns (and why similar questions reappear) are covered in Tide compliance review documents. A broader “what banks request” view is in Bank review evidence packs.
Scenario table
| Scenario-level signal | Process-level response | Outcome-level effect |
|---|---|---|
| Activity diverges from onboarding profile | Request for clarification + evidence | Slower payments; temporary limits possible |
| New countries/beneficiaries emerge | Enhanced screening + manual review | Cross-border transfers may be held |
| Receipts don’t look like trading income | Source-of-funds queries | Additional documentation requests; delays |
| Third-party/agency-like flows appear | Eligibility and risk re-assessment | Restrictions or exit decisions possible |
| Category/industry ambiguity | Reclassification or re-onboarding checks | Repeated questions until profile is consistent |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide is a digital business account brand that serves UK SMEs, with features and pricing that vary by plan and eligibility. For a neutral, product-focused overview (fees, inclusions, and typical trade-offs), see our Tide business bank account review.
Where the underlying account is provided by a bank versus an e-money structure can affect terminology, safeguarding, and complaint routes; the practical “how to check what you have” walkthrough is in App business accounts: bank or e-money? Check the FCA Register, alongside the FCA’s own explanation of how to confirm whether a firm is authorised (How to check a firm or individual is authorised | FCA).
Frequently Asked Questions
In this context, “mismatch” generally means the provider’s monitoring view of activity doesn’t align with the business profile it holds – industry, revenue model, customer type, geography, expected payment behaviour, and typical transaction sizes. It’s commonly pattern-based:
- A single transaction may be fine, but the overall shape of activity can look inconsistent.
Tide describes routine reviews as checks on account activity, how the account makes money, the industry it operates in, and whether key details have changed, which is the practical framework that often produces a “mismatch” narrative (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
Yes. Legitimacy and “fit” are different questions. Monitoring systems are designed to identify unusual or uncharacteristic behaviour compared with what is known about the customer and their risk profile, and then to request clarification where needed (ECSH33375 – Ongoing monitoring).
A legitimate change – new markets, new suppliers, a pricing shift, or a new payment method – can look like a profile break. Reviews often exist to re-baseline what “normal” looks like, not to allege wrongdoing.
Common triggers include rapid changes in volume/velocity, new counterparty types, first-time international corridors, pass-through cashflow patterns, and transactions that resemble third-party or agency flows rather than straightforward trading. These are “stacking signals”: several small shifts can add up.
Because the concept is broad, it helps to separate (a) what is inconsistent with the stated business model from (b) what is simply new. The general mechanics, including MCC-related issues for card flows, are covered in Business model mismatch and MCCs explained.
They can, particularly when card settlements are involved. MCCs are one of the “labels” that can influence how activity is classified and compared to expected business behaviour, especially when the underlying revenue is tied to card payment acceptance.
Also, card settlements often involve additional entities (acquirers/processors). A mismatch review at an account level and a settlement hold at a processor level can happen at the same time but for different reasons. The chain is explained in Merchant account vs EMI balance vs bank balance.
Cross-border payments introduce more variables: different jurisdictions, beneficiary banks, invoice locations, shipping/fulfilment footprints, and counterparties that may be unfamiliar to the provider.
Even when the business is operating normally, the documentation required to evidence trade can be more complex.
On Tide, international payments can be held for review depending on the trigger and the operational context; the Tide-specific impacts are covered in Tide international payments held for review.
Requests tend to aim at connecting activity to real-world trade: contracts, invoices, purchase orders, proof of delivery/fulfilment, supplier agreements, and records that show the flow of funds is consistent with the stated business model. Where large credits are involved, there may also be “why this source, why now” questions.
Tide-specific patterns (and why the same themes can repeat) are set out in Tide compliance review documents. For the wider “evidence pack” structure that many UK providers use, see Bank review evidence packs.
The operational reality varies by restriction type. Some reviews mainly affect outbound payments (especially new beneficiaries or international transfers), while other restrictions can affect cards, transfers, and certain account management actions. In some cases, inbound payments may still arrive even where outbound functions are limited.
For a Tide-specific breakdown of common “what still works” patterns, see Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works alongside the broader timeline and outcome framing in Tide account under review stages.
Durations vary widely because the timeline is driven by:
- The trigger type
- How much verification is required
- Whether the case becomes multi-stage (for example, initial review followed by further review).
Tide states that reviews may take time depending on the issue and complexity (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
Outcomes also vary: reinstatement after clarification, continued monitoring with an updated profile, or an exit decision where the activity is outside eligibility or risk appetite. The common “stages and outcomes” lens is covered in Tide account under review stages.
There are multiple constraints. Some are practical (sharing the exact trigger can allow systems to be “gamed”), and some are legal/regulatory (including restrictions around disclosing certain types of financial crime controls). The result is that communications can feel vague even where the provider is applying standard process.
This is also why reviews can feel repetitive: the provider is often trying to confirm a consistent story across onboarding data, transaction evidence, and current business reality. For the “why explanations are limited” angle, see Why banks can’t explain restrictions (tipping off).
A mismatch review can end in closure where the provider decides the activity is outside its supported use-cases or risk appetite, even if there is no allegation of wrongdoing. The key operational question then becomes how remaining balances are handled and what the provider’s terms allow.
The Financial Ombudsman Service publishes decisions that show how disputes about account blocks and closures are assessed in practice, including Tide-related cases such as Decision Reference DRN-2796278. Outcomes depend heavily on the specific facts, the terms, and whether the provider acted fairly and within its obligations.
“Mismatched activity” is best understood as model drift detection. Providers start with a narrative (“what this business does and how money should move”), then compare it to lived behaviour.
When the gap widens – new corridors, new counterparties, new payment shapes – monitoring frameworks are designed to force a re-justification of the story, using evidence.
That also explains why “mismatch” can sit at the intersection of risk and eligibility. A business can be legitimate, but still fall outside what a specific provider can support under its own operating model and controls.
Tide’s own routine review description blends these ideas: terms-of-service compliance, eligibility, and regulatory obligations (Routine reviews | Tide Business).
Sources & References
Related Content
