By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
Tide compliance reviews typically ask for documents that answer four core questions:
- Who controls the business
- What the business does
- How money moves through it
- Whether recent activity matches what’s expected for that profile
The most common requests cluster around identity/ownership, trading evidence (invoices/contracts/website), and transaction-level supporting evidence for particular payments.
The same questions can repeat because customer information is not “set once and never revisited”: firms re-check records as part of ongoing monitoring, periodic refresh cycles, and when changes or new activity patterns create a new risk picture.
Tide itself describes routine reviews of accounts’ activity, how they make money, the industries they operate in, and whether details have changed, and notes that more information and documents may be requested during that process (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What a “Tide compliance review document request” is trying to prove
Document lists can look long, but they usually map to a small number of checks:
Identity and control: confirm who is behind the business (directors/PSCs) and that the control structure is understood.
Business model and legitimacy: confirm what is being sold, who customers and suppliers are, and how revenue is generated.
Transaction rationale: tie specific inflows/outflows to real-world activity (invoice, contract, delivery, platform statement).
Risk alignment: confirm activity aligns with the stated profile (sector, geographies, volumes, counterparties, payment methods).
These checks sit in a wider legal and regulatory environment around financial crime controls and due diligence (for background, see the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and the FCA’s discussion of financial crime systems and controls in the Financial Crime Guide (FCG)).
The document categories that are typically requested
1) Identity documents for individuals in control
Common examples include:
Photo ID for directors and beneficial owners (passport/driving licence equivalents)
Proof of residential address (recent utility bill/bank statement equivalents)
In some cases, verification evidence for authorised representatives
The purpose is rarely “paperwork for its own sake”. It’s usually to confirm that the people controlling the account can be identified reliably and consistently across the firm’s records and any screening processes.
2) Ownership and PSC evidence (and why it can be re-asked)
Requests often centre on:
Current director and shareholder details
PSC confirmation and control explanations (especially where control is indirect or via a holding structure)
Organisational charts for groups
Even though PSC information exists in the Companies House ecosystem, firms may still ask for clarifications or supporting structure documents where control is not straightforward (see People with significant control (PSCs) (GOV.UK)).
This is also where “repeat requests” commonly arise after ownership changes, new investors, or director/PSC updates (covered in more detail in Beneficial ownership (PSC) changes: bank re-verification).
3) Trading evidence: what the business actually does
This category typically includes:
Invoices issued and paid (samples across customers and time)
Supplier invoices and purchase orders
Contracts or terms with major customers/suppliers
Website/app screenshots, listings, marketing materials, or platform store pages
Evidence of fulfilment (delivery notes, tracking, service completion)
This is usually about connecting the account to a real trading narrative: what is sold, who to, and on what terms. The aim is to reduce ambiguity between the stated business model and the observed payment activity.
4) Transaction-level supporting documents (why one payment triggers a wider request)
Often requested when a particular payment is queried:
Invoice/contract for the specific transaction
Email trail or purchase confirmation
Proof of delivery / service provision
Platform payout reports (marketplaces, card processors, booking sites)
Corresponding bank statements from another account where relevant
A single transaction can trigger a broader request because firms frequently review patterns, not just one line item: a payment that looks unusual can cause a look-back across similar counterparties, references, or geographies.
5) Source of funds and “how the business is funded”
This can include evidence for:
Capital injection or director loans
Investor subscriptions
Large or unusual credits not linked to trading invoices
Explanations of accumulated balances
It’s common for “source of funds” questions to be confused with “source of wealth”. The two can overlap, but they are not the same concept, and they can lead to different evidence requests (see Source of funds vs source of wealth: what banks mean).
6) Enhanced due diligence packs (why some businesses get a bigger list)
Some reviews expand into a larger pack where additional checks are required, which can mean more detail on counterparties, locations, and revenue drivers, plus a longer history of evidence.
This is not about “good” or “bad” businesses; it is about risk-based processes and the firm’s obligations to understand higher-risk situations more thoroughly (a practical explainer is in Enhanced due diligence (EDD) for SMEs: triggers, checks, outcomes).
Why the same document requests can repeat
Periodic refresh is normal (even for established businesses)
Information goes stale: addresses change, ownership evolves, products shift, and transaction patterns move with seasonality or growth. Refresh requests are a feature of ongoing monitoring and record maintenance, not only a reaction to “something wrong”.
That repeat cycle is especially common where directors/PSCs change, the business expands into new products or markets, or a long period has passed since the last verification (see Periodic KYC refreshes for established SMEs: why accounts get rechecked).
“Repeat” can also mean “the last pack didn’t fully answer the question”
Two different documents can look similar but serve different purposes (for example, an invoice sample proves trading; a platform payout report proves settlement mechanics).
Where evidence doesn’t link cleanly to the questioned activity, follow-up requests can feel like repetition even when the underlying question has narrowed.
Tide’s own routine review description is consistent with this: the firm states reviews look at activity, how accounts make money, the industries involved, and whether key details have changed, and notes documents may be needed to confirm that information (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)).
Sometimes communication is constrained
During certain processes, firms may be limited in how much detail they can share, which can make the “why” behind a request feel opaque. UK law includes offences related to disclosures likely to prejudice an investigation in the regulated sector (see Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: section 333A (tipping off)).
For the practical impact of limited explanations during restrictions, see Why banks can’t explain restrictions (tipping off).
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Director/PSC details need confirmation | ID + ownership/PSC evidence requested | Reviews can pause progress until control is clear |
| Business model appears unclear from activity | Trading evidence requested (invoices/contracts/website) | More back-and-forth where goods/services are hard to evidence |
| One or more transactions look unusual | Transaction-level evidence requested | Specific payments may be held or scrutinised longer |
| Funding doesn’t match trading profile | Source-of-funds evidence requested | Clarifications may extend beyond one transaction |
| Higher-risk features present (sector/geo/volume) | Expanded EDD pack requested | The request list becomes longer and more detailed |
| Records are due for refresh | Updated documents requested | “Repeat” requests appear even with stable trading |
Scenario Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Director/PSC details need confirmation | ID + ownership/PSC evidence requested | Reviews can pause progress until control is clear |
| Business model appears unclear from activity | Trading evidence requested (invoices/contracts/website) | More back-and-forth where goods/services are hard to evidence |
| One or more transactions look unusual | Transaction-level evidence requested | Specific payments may be held or scrutinised longer |
| Funding doesn’t match trading profile | Source-of-funds evidence requested | Clarifications may extend beyond one transaction |
| Higher-risk features present (sector/geo/volume) | Expanded EDD pack requested | The request list becomes longer and more detailed |
| Records are due for refresh | Updated documents requested | “Repeat” requests appear even with stable trading |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide describes routine reviews as checking account activity, how the business makes money, the industries operated in, and whether key details have changed, and it notes documents may be requested to confirm information (see Our routine security reviews (Tide)). That context helps explain why document packs can be structured around “control + business model + transaction rationale”.
For a separate, neutral overview of Tide’s account proposition, fees and features (not focused on reviews), see our Tide review.
Frequently Asked Questions
A compliance review is typically a structured check that the account profile still makes sense:
- Who controls the business
- What the business does
- Whether recent activity matches that narrative
It often looks less like a single yes/no decision and more like a request-and-response process, where documents fill gaps in the story the payment activity is telling.
Tide’s own routine review description frames this as:
- Reviewing activity
- How accounts make money
- Industries
- Changed details
With requests for information and documents where needed.
That is consistent with how document lists usually map to core questions rather than to a single “missing item”.
Documents at sign-up confirm a point-in-time picture. Over time, details can change (ownership, addresses, trading model), and firms also run refresh cycles so that records remain current and consistent with the latest risk assessment.
“Repeat requests” can also happen when a previous response didn’t fully resolve the underlying question. For example, a set of invoices can show trading, but may not explain a large credit that looks like funding or a third-party pass-through; the follow-up is then about the missing link rather than about asking for the same thing again.
Identity requests usually target individuals with control or meaningful influence: directors, significant shareholders, and beneficial owners. The documents themselves vary by person and situation, but they generally aim to establish a reliable identity and current address.
Edge cases often drive repeat requests:
- Name changes
- Expired IDs
- Mismatched addresses across records
- Indirect ownership chains
Where PSC/control is complex, firms may combine ID checks with structure explanations and proof of control to ensure the right individuals are being screened and recorded.
Trading evidence commonly includes invoices, contracts, order confirmations, supplier bills, and online presence material. The purpose is to demonstrate what is being sold, to whom, and on what commercial terms, so that payment flows match the stated business model.
This category can expand when trading is intangible (digital services, consulting), when fulfilment is hard to evidence, or when the account receives large volumes of small payments that are difficult to tie to individual invoices. In those cases, firms may ask for representative samples, platform reports, or additional context rather than a single definitive document.
Transaction-level evidence is supporting material for a specific payment: the invoice, contract, delivery proof, customer correspondence, or a platform payout statement linked to that transaction. It is often used to confirm that an individual payment has a legitimate commercial rationale consistent with the account profile.
A single payment can widen into a broader request because firms often test whether the questioned feature is isolated or systematic. If the same counterparty, reference type, geography, or amount pattern appears elsewhere, the review can expand to a sample set to understand the pattern, not just the one line item.
- “Source of funds” is typically about the immediate origin of money entering the account: trading receipts, a loan drawdown, an investment, or a director capital injection. Evidence requests aim to link that inflow to a clear, documentable event.
- “Source of wealth” is broader: how an individual or business accumulated wealth over time. Not every review goes that far, but when it does, the evidence can look more historical and personal. Confusion between the two can make a request feel disproportionate, when the firm may be trying to answer a specific origin question (funds) versus a broader affordability narrative (wealth).
Public records help, but they may not answer everything needed for a specific risk assessment. For example, public filings may not show the commercial rationale for a control structure, the practical decision-maker in a group, or how control is exercised through agreements.
Ownership also changes, and the firm may be reconciling its internal records with updated filings or with information it holds from earlier onboarding. Where PSC information is recent, complex, or indirect, requests for clarifications and supporting structure documents are a common reason “ownership questions” repeat.
A pack usually appears when more than one core question needs answering at once: identity/control plus business model plus transaction rationale, often alongside refresh requirements. Packs can also appear when the firm needs to see a consistent narrative across multiple categories rather than relying on a single document that could be incomplete.
Packs often include a mixture of “static” documents (identity, ownership, filings) and “dynamic” evidence (recent invoices, statements, platform reports). That mix is one reason the request can feel repetitive: static documents tend to be re-asked when records are stale, while dynamic evidence is re-asked when activity changes.
Sometimes, particularly where the question being tested relates to personal funding into the business, director loans, or ownership/control that is closely tied to individuals. In those cases, the firm may treat the personal element as relevant to explaining how money entered the business or who is exercising control.
The scope and proportionality of what is requested can vary by scenario. Personal information requests often sit at the boundary between business evidence and explaining funding origins, and that boundary is where misunderstandings tend to occur – especially when a business inflow looks more like personal funding than trading revenue.
After documents are submitted, reviews typically move through validation (are documents readable/current), reconciliation (do they match the account story), and decisioning (continue as normal, maintain restrictions, or exit). Tide’s routine review page also references that accounts may be paused during review and that review duration can vary depending on complexity.
Timelines vary because “complexity” is not just volume of paperwork. Complexity can mean ownership chains, mixed revenue streams, cross-border counterparties, or unclear linkage between payments and commercial evidence. That is why two businesses can submit “the same number” of documents and still see different review durations.
Document requests feel repetitive when they are interpreted as “re-proving legitimacy”, but they are usually better understood as re-proving alignment: alignment between control, business model, and observed payment behaviour at a point in time.
As soon as one of those elements changes ownership, product mix, counterparties, geographies, or volumes – the same foundational questions can become relevant again.
The practical mechanism is that most review packs are not bespoke checklists; they are standard categories that can be switched on by triggers (refresh cycles, data changes, pattern shifts). That standardisation is why lists look similar across reviews, even when the underlying trigger is different.
Related Content
