Tide Cash-Intensive Activity: Why It Can Lead to Extra Questions or Restrictions

Not automatically. Tide supports cash deposits via the Post Office and PayPoint, and publishes how deposits work, including deposit limits and fees, in its guide to depositing cash and cheques into your Tide account. The existence of deposits alone is not the same as a restriction or closure outcome.

Where reviews tend to appear is when deposit behaviour changes, becomes difficult to reconcile to the stated business model, or stacks with other signals (such as unusual outbound transfers). Tide describes that its routine reviews consider account activity and how the business makes money on its routine security reviews page.

Cash is harder to evidence end-to-end. Card receipts typically link to a processor trail, and invoiced payments can link to counterparties and contracts. Cash deposits rely more heavily on internal records (till reports, reconciliation, supplier invoices) to demonstrate that deposits reflect genuine sales.

Regulators and supervisors also treat cash deposits as a known vulnerability. The FCA has published expectations on mitigating risk in its page on cash-based money laundering, and monitoring guidance commonly expects scrutiny of transactions over time, as outlined in JMLSG Chapter 5.7 Monitoring customer activity.

Cash reviews usually focus on linking deposits to real-world trade and showing that the cash handling process is coherent for the business type. That often means POS/till reports, daily takings summaries, reconciliation logs, refund logs, and evidence of stock purchases or supplier payments that match sales volumes.

If a business has mixed income (some cash, some transfer, some card), checks may also look for consistency between channels – for example, whether cash deposits align with stated premises, opening hours, booking records, or job sheets. For Tide-specific patterns of what tends to be requested, see Tide compliance review documents.

They can be, depending on cut-off timing and processing windows. Tide’s own deposit guidance describes typical processing expectations and differences between Post Office and PayPoint in its cash deposit help content.

Separately, the Post Office explains the Tide services it supports in branch on its Tide services page. Even where deposits are supported, operational delays can still occur (for example, end-of-day timing or non-business days), which can matter more for cash-heavy trading where deposits fund near-term outbound payments.

It’s often about the shape of behaviour rather than a single deposit. Examples include sudden increases in deposit size or frequency, deposits split across multiple locations or staff in ways that don’t match the business footprint, or deposits that are quickly transferred out in a way that resembles pass-through activity.

Patterns that sit near published limits can also attract questions, because monitoring systems look for repeated “edge” behaviours. Importantly, a pattern being queried is not the same as a conclusion; it is commonly a prompt to confirm the economic rationale and record-keeping that explains the behaviour.

Restrictions vary by case type. Some reviews remain “information-only”, while others involve temporary limits on parts of account functionality while information is assessed, which Tide references as a possibility on its routine security reviews page.

Where restrictions are applied, the practical impact is usually felt on outbound activity (transfers, new beneficiaries, or certain payment types). For Tide-specific staging and typical outcomes, see Tide account under review stages, and for function-level expectations, see what usually still works.

They overlap, but they are not identical.

• “Cash intensity” is often a business-model and record-keeping question: how cash is generated, counted, and deposited, and whether the pattern is consistent with the business profile.
• “Source of funds” questions focus more directly on where specific money came from and whether it can be evidenced as legitimate.

In practice, a cash-heavy pattern can trigger source-of-funds style questions when deposits are large, sudden, or paired with rapid outbound transfers. Tide-specific framing of these questions is covered in Tide source of funds checks.

There are practical and legal constraints around explaining detailed monitoring triggers. Disclosing precise indicators can reduce the effectiveness of controls, and some restrictions on disclosure can apply in financial crime contexts.

That is why communications can feel generic (“unusual activity” or “additional information required”) even when the underlying review is specific. We cover these constraints and the “tipping off” theme in why banks can’t explain restrictions.

It can, but closure is typically an outcome of a broader decision: whether the account remains eligible for the provider’s service and risk appetite after review, and whether information requested can be provided in a way that resolves the concern.

Cash intensity on its own is not inherently disqualifying, but unresolved inconsistencies can lead to stronger actions.

Where a closure decision is made, the operational difference between being restricted and being closed matters (timelines, functionality, and next steps). That distinction is covered in Tide restricted vs closed.

Yes. Ongoing monitoring is not limited to new businesses. Changes in activity, ownership, sector exposure, or transaction patterns can lead to periodic rechecks. HMRC describes ongoing monitoring as an expected control across the relationship in ECSH33375 – Ongoing monitoring, and industry guidance frames monitoring as risk-based scrutiny over time in JMLSG Chapter 5.7.

This is also why established SMEs can face periodic KYC refreshes even when trading is stable. For that angle, see periodic KYC refreshes for established SMEs.