By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
A Tide international payment that is “held for review” is typically a pause in the cross-border payment chain while screening, verification, or additional information checks are completed.
The practical effect is rarely limited to a single transfer: a hold can create knock-on impacts for supplier releases, time-critical invoices, and reconciliation (especially where there are intermediaries, FX conversion, or multiple parties involved).
Not every hold implies wrongdoing. Many reviews are triggered by data quality (missing or inconsistent beneficiary details), pattern changes (amounts, destinations, frequency), or heightened screening on certain corridors and counterparties.
The key operational point is that international transfers can involve more than one institution and more than one set of controls, so the “owner” of the pause may not be obvious from the front-end status alone.
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What “held for review” usually means (in operational terms)
A “held for review” status is best understood as a temporary control point rather than a final outcome. The payment instruction has typically been created, but completion is paused while checks occur.
Depending on the payment route, the pause can happen before the funds leave, mid-chain, or **after a downstream party requests clarification.
International payments often involve:
structured payment messages and beneficiary banking data,
one or more screening steps (sanctions/PEP/fraud),
and, in some cases, intermediary or correspondent institutions.
That matters operationally because each additional party can introduce its own review thresholds and information requirements.
Why cross-border transfers are reviewed more often than domestic transfers
Cross-border payments typically carry higher perceived risk because they can involve:
more jurisdictions and legal regimes,
weaker data consistency across institutions,
and increased exposure to sanctions and AML controls.
Regulatory expectations in the UK around sanctions compliance and financial crime controls are set out across sources such as the FCA’s overview of Financial sanctions and the government’s UK financial sanctions general guidance.
International corridors that overlap with jurisdictions subject to enhanced monitoring can also raise additional screening sensitivity (see FATF’s page on High-risk and other monitored jurisdictions).
Common triggers for Tide international payment reviews
The triggers below are framed as mechanisms (what tends to cause a pause), not as judgments about a business.
1) Sanctions or PEP screening matches (including “near matches”)
Even where there is no true match, screening tools can produce “alerts” that require confirmation before processing continues. This is particularly relevant where names are common, spellings vary, or there are transliteration differences.
For a Tide-specific deep dive on what screening matches can trigger, see Tide PEP and sanctions screening: what a match can trigger.
2) Higher-risk corridors, industries, or counterparties
Some destination corridors, counterparty types, and transaction narratives attract more scrutiny. FATF publications on High-risk and other monitored jurisdictions are frequently referenced in risk frameworks across the financial system.
Separately, regulators sometimes publish good/poor practice findings that raise expectations around screening, governance, and escalation (for example the FCA’s note on Sanctions systems and controls).
3) Incomplete or inconsistent beneficiary data
International transfers can fail or be paused when beneficiary details are incomplete, inconsistent, or ambiguous – for example:
beneficiary name that does not align with account information,
missing address information where required by route/provider,
incorrect bank identifier fields (which can vary by country),
unclear payment reference or purpose narrative.
This is often a data quality issue rather than a compliance “red flag”, but it can still trigger manual review.
4) New beneficiary or first-time corridor behaviour
First-time payments to a new payee, a new country, or a new bank can be treated differently from repeat patterns. In operational terms, “newness” increases uncertainty, and uncertainty increases review likelihood.
5) Unusual value, frequency, or structuring patterns
Payments that are materially different from prior behaviour (size, cadence, round numbers, clustering) can trigger checks. The common driver is “pattern break” rather than any single amount threshold.
6) Source of funds / purpose of payment queries
Some holds occur because more context is required about:
why the payment is being made,
what the underlying goods/services are,
or where the money is coming from in the wider commercial chain.
For a Tide-specific explainer of these requests, see Tide source of funds checks: what businesses are asked to explain.
7) Counterparty bank or intermediary queries mid-chain
A hold can be introduced after the instruction leaves the front-end provider if an intermediary or beneficiary bank requests clarification. This can create a practical challenge: the party that sees the “hold” status may not be the party that can immediately resolve the question.
Understanding the wider chain can help frame what is happening operationally (see Merchant account vs EMI balance vs bank balance: payments chain).
Operational impact: what a hold can break (even if it’s “just one payment”)
A held international payment can create secondary effects that show up outside the transfer itself:
Supplier release risk: goods may be withheld until funds are confirmed received, not merely “sent”.
Time-bound obligations: some payments (rent deposits, customs clearances, settlement deadlines) are operationally time-sensitive.
Cashflow visibility: a hold can create uncertainty about the true “available” balance versus “committed” funds.
Reconciliation drift: finance teams can end up with timing differences that complicate bookkeeping, especially if an FX conversion is involved.
Reputational friction: repeated “pending” statuses can affect commercial trust even where the eventual outcome is normal completion.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Beneficiary details don’t align (name/bank fields) | Payment paused for manual validation | Supplier may see “not received”; delivery or service start may slip |
| First payment to a new overseas supplier | Additional screening before release | Procurement timelines may move; cashflow planning becomes uncertain |
| New corridor or destination country | Extra checks or downstream query | Payment may sit “in progress” while messages are clarified |
| Unusual size vs prior activity | Review triggered by pattern break | Treasury may need to re-forecast short-term liquidity |
| Payment purpose unclear | Request for invoice/contract context | Accounts team spends time assembling documentation |
| Intermediary bank requests clarification | Mid-chain hold until query resolved | Front-end status may not identify who needs what, slowing resolution |
What information is commonly requested during a review
When a payment is paused, the follow-up request is often aimed at clarifying the commercial rationale and the parties involved, rather than re-checking identity from scratch. Examples include:
invoice(s) or contract(s),
purchase orders or delivery documentation,
explanation of the relationship between payer and beneficiary,
business context (what is being bought/sold and why),
supporting narrative for unusual timing or amounts.
For a broader view of the types of information UK banks request during monitoring, see Bank review evidence packs: what UK banks request ongoing.
A second lens: where the hold happens and why that changes the outcome
Different “hold locations” create different operational consequences. A pause introduced before funds leave can look similar on the surface to a pause introduced mid-chain, but the recovery path is different.
| Scenario-level | Process-level | Outcome-level |
|---|---|---|
| Hold before execution | Front-end screening or information request | Payment does not enter the international network until resolved |
| Hold after submission | Additional review after instruction creation | Status may show as pending; timing becomes hard to forecast |
| Hold introduced mid-chain | Intermediary requests clarification | Resolution depends on message exchange between institutions |
| Hold at beneficiary bank | Beneficiary-side compliance review | Beneficiary may be asked for documents; payer may have limited visibility |
| Repeated holds over time | Risk profile recalibration | More transactions may be routed to manual review |
| Corridor-specific sensitivity | Destination/counterparty risk weighting | Similar future payments may be reviewed more frequently |
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide positions itself as an app-based business account experience, but “international payment held for review” behaviour is often shaped by the wider payment chain rather than one app status message.
That is why operational planning for cross-border transfers often depends on understanding where checks occur and what information is likely to be required.
For an overview of Tide’s business account positioning and trade-offs, see our Tide business banking review.
Frequently Asked Questions
Not necessarily. “Held for review” is usually a pause while checks complete or clarification is obtained. A common outcome is that the payment proceeds once the requested information is provided or once screening is cleared.
However, a pause can end in several operational outcomes: completion, cancellation before execution, or return after partial routing. The key point is that “held” describes a status in a process, not a decision in itself.
In international transfers, more than one party may have the ability to pause or query a payment. The front-end provider can hold at initiation, but intermediary institutions and the beneficiary bank may also introduce delays if they require clarification.
This is why operational troubleshooting can feel opaque: the customer-facing status may not identify which entity raised the query, especially when the hold is introduced mid-chain.
Data quality issues are a frequent driver: incomplete beneficiary details, inconsistent names, or unclear payment purpose narratives can trigger review. These are often resolvable once the relevant fields or documentation are aligned.
Separately, screening-related triggers (sanctions/PEP alerts, corridor risk) can prompt manual confirmation even where the underlying transaction is legitimate and routine.
Yes. Reviews can be triggered by changes in pattern even when the counterparty is familiar: a larger-than-usual amount, different destination bank, altered beneficiary details, or an unusually timed transfer can all create a “pattern break”.
Operationally, this means historic familiarity reduces risk but does not eliminate review triggers, especially if the transaction differs from the established baseline.
There is no single “fastest” document, because requests typically depend on what is unclear: sometimes it is the business purpose, sometimes the identity of the beneficiary, and sometimes the origin of funds.
In practice, what resolves reviews is coherent evidence that matches the payment narrative: invoice/contract alignment, consistent counterparty details, and an explanation that fits the commercial context.
It can. Some reviews are isolated to the single transfer, but others occur alongside broader monitoring activity that can increase friction across future transactions, especially if repeated queries occur.
Where a review escalates into a wider account review process, the operational effect can be broader than one transfer. For the staged view of Tide-specific review outcomes, see the earlier-linked Tide review timeline article referenced in the cannibalisation check.
Financial crime controls often involve internal risk models, third-party screening data, and regulatory constraints. Even where a business is acting normally, providers may limit detail because the information could reveal control thresholds or investigative methods.
Operationally, the consequence is that resolution tends to focus on providing clarifying information rather than debating the underlying trigger logic.
Some corridors attract more scrutiny due to:
- Sanctions exposure
- Elevated financial crime risk scoring
- Broader monitoring frameworks
FATF’s publications on monitored jurisdictions are one example of a widely referenced input into risk assessment frameworks.
That said, “country risk” is rarely the only factor. Counterparty identity, industry, transaction purpose, and data quality often combine to determine whether a payment is routed to manual review.
A time-critical payment that is held can create operational knock-on effects even if it is later completed. The key issue is not just the final outcome, but the uncertainty window while the payment is paused.
This is one reason many businesses treat international payment routing as an operational resilience topic: delays can affect supply chain, customer delivery commitments, and short-term liquidity forecasts.
UK firms operating in regulated financial services environments are expected to maintain controls to mitigate money laundering and sanctions risk. High-level expectations and guidance are set out across sources including FCA materials and the UK government’s sanctions guidance.
For readers wanting primary reference points, the UK’s sanctions guidance and the text of the Money Laundering Regulations are directly accessible in the sources below. These documents describe frameworks and obligations rather than predicting outcomes for any individual payment.
International payment “holds” are best seen as control points in a multi-party system. The front-end interface shows one status, but the underlying network can involve:
- Screening
- Message standards
- Intermediary routing
- Beneficiary bank acceptance
Each with separate incentives and obligations. The operational risk is therefore less about a single provider decision and more about chain complexity.
From a systems perspective, the most important constraint is that compliance and fraud controls are designed to be cautious under uncertainty.
When data is incomplete or a pattern changes, the system often defaults to “pause and validate”.
That default can feel disproportionate to a small business making a routine payment, but it is structurally consistent with how regulated payment chains manage risk across borders.
Sources & References
Related Content
