By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
A “match” in PEP or sanctions screening usually means Tide’s checks have identified a potential overlap between a person connected to the account (or a counterparty) and a watchlist entry.
That does not automatically mean wrongdoing. It often leads to a manual review, requests for documents, and sometimes temporary restrictions while details are confirmed.
Tide describes routine security reviews where it may ask for information and documents, may pause the account during review, and may be unable to provide updates for legal reasons (as set out in Routine reviews | Tide Business).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What Tide means by “PEP screening” and “sanctions screening”
PEP screening
A PEP (politically exposed person) is generally someone in (or recently in) a prominent public role, plus certain connected persons (for example relatives or close associates), because that status can raise bribery/corruption and misuse risks in the financial system.
UK firms’ treatment of PEPs is expected to be risk-based and proportionate. The FCA’s guidance on that approach is set out in FG25/3: Treatment of politically exposed persons | FCA.
Sanctions screening
Sanctions screening is different: it focuses on whether a person or entity is designated under UK sanctions measures (for example, asset freezes), and whether dealing with them is prohibited or restricted.
The UK Government publishes the sanctions designation information in The UK Sanctions List – GOV.UK, and it is searchable via UK Sanctions List Search – GOV.UK.
What a “match” usually means in screening
A match is commonly a screening alert, not a conclusion. Screening tools frequently use partial or “fuzzy” matching to avoid missing true risks where spellings vary. That creates a predictable trade-off: a system that never flags false positives may also miss real matches.
This is why a match typically triggers follow-up validation. In the regulated environment, firms are expected to maintain effective systems and controls to reduce financial crime risk, and these controls commonly include screening and escalation steps (as discussed in the FCA’s wider financial crime guidance in A firm's guide to countering financial crime risks (FCG) (PDF)).
What can trigger a screening match on a Tide account
In practice, matches tend to arise from four broad patterns:
1) People-data changes (directors, PSCs, signatories, team members)
When someone new is added or an existing person’s details change, screening is often re-run. That’s one reason ownership and control changes can trigger re-verification (see Tide director and PSC checks: when ownership changes trigger re-verification).
2) New counterparties and cross-border rails
International beneficiaries, intermediaries, or overseas counterparties can increase the chance of a match (including via transliterated names and incomplete identifiers). This overlaps with the pattern described in International payments under review: why cross-border transfers get held.
3) Similar names and limited identifiers
Many alerts are “same or similar name” situations, sometimes with limited date-of-birth data available to the screening system at the moment of the alert.
4) “Profile drift” during routine monitoring
A match can also appear as part of a broader compliance review where activity, industry, or account details are being checked (for Tide’s description of this review process, see Routine reviews | Tide Business).
What a match can trigger inside Tide (typical pathway)
Tide describes a review process where it may request information/documents, may pause the account while reviewing, and may be unable to provide updates for legal reasons (see Routine reviews | Tide Business). In practical terms, a match commonly leads to one or more of the following steps:
Step 1: Internal escalation and manual review
A sanctions or PEP alert is typically routed for additional checks. The purpose is usually to decide whether the alert is a false positive (different person) or requires enhanced handling.
Step 2: Targeted questions and evidence requests
The follow-up questions often focus on identity clarity (who the person is), role clarity (why they are connected to the account), and activity clarity (what transactions relate to). This commonly aligns with the document categories explained in Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats).
Step 3: Possible temporary restrictions while checks run
A match can coincide with “reduced functionality” until the position is clear. For the practical impact of restrictions, see Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works (and what stops).
Step 4: Outcome: continue, restrict, or close
Outcomes vary by context. A common split is between “restriction” (account remains open but constrained) and “closure” (relationship ended), as set out in Tide business account restricted vs closed: what it means. For how reviews typically progress overall, see Tide account under review: stages, timelines, typical outcomes.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| PEP alert on a connected individual | Manual review and proportionality assessment | Extra questions; review may broaden to role and activity |
| Sanctions alert on a connected individual | Heightened escalation to confirm identity and designation status | Restrictions may be more likely until clarified |
| False positive (similar name) | Cleared after identity confirmation | Temporary disruption; then normal service resumes |
| Counterparty appears in sanctions-related screening | Transaction-level review | Specific payments may be delayed or blocked |
| Ownership/control change coincides with alert | Wider re-verification | Requests can expand beyond the alert to corporate details |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level (what matched) | Process-level (what gets checked) | Outcome-level (what you observe) |
|---|---|---|
| Person linked to account flagged as potential PEP | Status confirmation + risk-based handling | Follow-up questions, often around role/connection |
| Person/entity flagged as potential sanctions target | Identity resolution + restrictions assessment | Higher-friction review; possible payment constraints |
| Partial data match (name only) | “Is it the same person?” validation | Requests for clearer identifiers and documentation |
| Match during routine monitoring | Broader profile review alongside the match | Evidence pack can include business model and activity |
Why PEP matches and sanctions matches behave differently
A PEP match is usually about enhanced attention, not a prohibition: firms are expected to apply a proportionate, risk-based approach when dealing with PEPs (see FG25/3: Treatment of politically exposed persons | FCA).
A sanctions match can be more operationally binary: if the designated person/entity is confirmed, firms may be restricted from processing certain activity.
This is why sanctions checks can have a more immediate effect on whether payments can proceed, and why the quality of identity resolution is central (see The UK Sanctions List – GOV.UK).
What information is typically requested after a match
Follow-up requests vary, but commonly cluster into:
Identity clarity: confirming that the screened person is (or is not) the individual on the watchlist entry.
Role and control clarity: why the person is linked to the account (director, PSC, employee, authorised user).
Transaction clarity: what specific payments represent, particularly if cross-border or unusual for the profile.
Funds narrative where relevant: where money is coming from in the flagged flow (see Tide source of funds checks: what businesses are usually asked to explain).
In the UK framework, the expectation of a risk-based approach and proportionate enhanced checks is rooted in the wider AML regime (see The Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds Regulations 2017 (PDF)), which is one reason “match follow-up” can look similar across multiple firms.
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide explains that it conducts routine security reviews and may request information and documents, may pause an account during review, and may be unable to provide updates for legal reasons (see Routine reviews | Tide Business).
For a separate, neutral overview of Tide’s product features and pricing (not focused on screening), see our Tide review.
Frequently Asked Questions
A PEP match usually means Tide’s screening has identified a potential link between a connected person and a PEP profile. It is typically treated as a prompt to confirm status and then apply a risk-based approach, rather than a statement that something improper has happened.
The practical impact is often increased questioning around the person’s role and connection to the business, and sometimes temporary restrictions while the review is completed. This “review then decide” pattern aligns with the way Tide describes routine security reviews and document requests.
A sanctions match usually means screening has flagged a possible overlap with a person or entity subject to UK sanctions measures. Because sanctions can impose restrictions on dealing with designated persons, firms often escalate these alerts quickly to confirm whether the match is genuine.
Even where the match is ultimately a false positive, sanctions alerts can produce more immediate disruption than PEP alerts, because the main question becomes whether transactions can lawfully proceed once identity is confirmed.
A match is best understood as an alert that requires confirmation. Screening systems are designed to be cautious and to flag “possible” matches so that true matches are not missed.
That design means false positives are a normal by-product. The process that follows is typically about narrowing uncertainty: identifying whether it is the same person/entity and what the relationship is.
False positives happen because:
- Many people share similar names
- Watchlist entries may not always provide enough identifiers for a clean, automatic “same person / different person” decision in every case
They are also more likely where names have multiple spellings or transliterations, where partial data is available at the moment the alert is raised, or where additional individuals are added to an account and screening is re-run.
Tide describes that it may request information/documents and may pause an account during review (see its routine review process). In real terms, a match can lead to temporary restrictions on certain account functions while checks are completed.
Where restrictions occur, they often present as “reduced functionality” rather than a complete shutdown. The practical “what works vs what stops” experience is covered in Tide account locked or frozen: what usually still works (and what stops).
A match can shift the scope of the review from “one alert” to “is the customer profile still accurate?”, especially if the alert arises during a change event (new director, PSC change, or updated personal details).
This is why PEP/sanctions alerts often overlap with ownership and control re-checks. The mechanism is explained in Tide director and PSC checks: when ownership changes trigger re-verification.
Requests typically aim to clarify:
- Identity
- Role
- Transaction rationale
This can include identity documents for newly in-scope individuals, evidence of the person’s role (for example, corporate records or internal role confirmation), and transaction evidence where specific payments are under question.
This is also why requests can feel repetitive: firms often need the same “building blocks” (identity, role, business model, transaction evidence) to resolve very different alerts. That repeat pattern is mapped in Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats).
Cross-border payments can increase the complexity of screening because more parties may be involved (beneficiaries, intermediaries, overseas counterparties) and because naming data can be less standardised across jurisdictions.
This can mean more transaction-level checking, especially where the beneficiary or counterparty resembles a watchlist entry. The “held while reviewed” pattern is explored in International payments under review: why cross-border transfers get held.
Tide describes a staged review process and notes that, for legal reasons, it may not be able to provide updates while reviewing the information provided (see its routine reviews guidance). That can make the experience feel opaque, particularly where restrictions are in place.
The practical point is that “lack of updates” is not, on its own, a reliable signal about the outcome. Reviews can differ in complexity depending on how quickly identity and role questions can be resolved.
Outcomes usually fall into “restriction” (account remains but with constraints) or “closure” (relationship ended), and the distinction matters for what happens next in operational terms (see Tide business account restricted vs closed: what it means).
For complaints escalation, eligibility depends on the business type/size and the product/service in question. The Financial Ombudsman’s small business site explains who it can help in Who we can help – Financial Ombudsman for small business, which is relevant when considering whether a complaint route is in scope.
PEP and sanctions screening is best understood as a pattern-matching and uncertainty-reduction process.
The “match” is the start of that process, not the end: systems are designed to raise alerts when they cannot confidently exclude a risk, and human review then works through identity, role, and transaction context until the alert can be closed or escalated.
Most disruption comes from the gap between how data is stored (partial identifiers, variant spellings, changing roles) and how financial controls are required to behave (cautious, risk-based, and consistent). The more moving parts there are:
- Multiple directors/PSCs
- Cross-border counterparties
- Changing activity
The more likely it is that screening produces alerts that require a broader review to resolve cleanly.
Related Content
