By: Money Navigator Research Team
Last Reviewed: 27/01/2026
FACT CHECKED
Quick Summary
“Source of funds” questions in Tide reviews are usually asking one practical thing: what is this incoming money, and what real-world activity (or event) does it relate to? Most requests centre on linking credits to trading, funding, or other legitimate business activity using records that match the account’s story.
These questions can come up in routine checks because Tide says it reviews account activity, how accounts make money, and whether details have changed, and may request information or documents during that process (Routine reviews (Tide)).
This article is educational and not financial advice.
What “source of funds” means in plain English
Source of funds is about the origin of money used in a particular transaction (or set of transactions), not a general biography of the owners. HMRC summarises this distinction clearly when describing source of funds versus source of wealth (HMRC Economic Crime Supervision Handbook: Source of funds and source of wealth).
Where a firm is carrying out ongoing monitoring, scrutiny of transactions may include (where necessary) considering source of funds so activity matches what the firm understands about the customer and their risk profile (the underlying framework is set out in the UK’s anti-money laundering regime, including the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (PDF)).
Why Tide asks source of funds questions
In practice, source of funds questions tend to appear when there is a gap between:
What the business says it does (industry, customers, revenue model), and
What the account is receiving (timing, size, sender, references, geography, frequency).
Tide’s description of routine reviews explicitly includes checking account activity, how accounts make money, industries involved, and whether details have changed (Routine reviews (Tide)).
That maps closely to why “where did this money come from?” is such a common question: it’s a fast way to test whether incoming funds fit the expected picture.
For how these requests usually fit into a broader Tide review journey, see Tide account under review: stages, timelines, typical outcomes.
The inflow types businesses are most often asked to explain
1) Trading receipts that don’t clearly match the trading narrative
This is the most common category: payments that are likely revenue, but where the link between the credit and the underlying sale is unclear.
Typical “what they want to understand” questions include: who paid, what was sold, when it was supplied, and why the amount/reference looks the way it does. Where card or platform settlements are involved, the question can shift from “one payment” to “what settlement cycle created this credit”.
2) Large one-off credits
One-off credits are often queried because they can be funding, asset sales, refunds, insurance proceeds, or transfers from related parties – and the label on the bank statement may not explain which.
The explanation pattern here is usually event-based: what happened, why the business received the funds, and how it relates to the business’s activities.
Owner funding tends to attract questions when it is large, frequent, or doesn’t fit the expected trading pattern. It can also be queried if the sender name differs from recorded ownership/control information.
Where ownership/control data has changed recently, these questions can coincide with a wider re-check (see Beneficial ownership (PSC) changes: bank re-verification).
4) Third-party funds and pass-through activity
If money arrives from one party and quickly exits to another, it can look like pass-through behaviour. That can be legitimate in some business models, but it is also a common pattern firms scrutinise because the business may be acting as an intermediary.
This is one reason a source of funds question sometimes broadens into “business model” questions (see Business model mismatch (MCCs): why banks flag activity).
5) Cross-border credits or credits from unfamiliar jurisdictions
International inflows can be queried because they may change the risk profile of the activity (counterparties, jurisdictions, and the reason for cross-border movement can matter more than the amount alone).
This often overlaps with wider questions about international transfers (see International payments under review: why cross-border transfers get held).
6) Cash-like activity and cash-intensive patterns
Where a business’s activity involves significant cash deposits or cash-equivalent behaviour, firms may ask more questions because cash reduces the available audit trail compared with account-to-account payments.
Even when activity is legitimate, cash intensity can be a trigger for deeper questioning (see Cash-intensive businesses and deposits: why banks ask more questions).
What “a good explanation” usually looks like (structure, not “tips”)
Most source of funds responses follow a simple structure:
Identify the credit (date/amount/sender/reference as it appears on statements).
Name the underlying reason (trading revenue, owner funding, refund, grant, asset sale, settlement, etc.).
Link it to business context (what the business does, and why this inflow makes sense for it).
Show consistency across records (the explanation matches invoices/contracts/platform reports/other account statements, where relevant).
Where a firm’s request feels repetitive, it is often because the missing piece is the link between the payment and the underlying event – which is why source of funds questions commonly sit alongside broader document requests (see Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats)).
For a deeper explanation of the terminology and why “source of funds” is not the same as “source of wealth”, see Source of funds vs source of wealth: what banks mean.
Summary Table
| Scenario | Outcome | Practical impact |
|---|---|---|
| Trading receipts look inconsistent with the stated model | Source-of-funds questions focus on what was sold and to whom | Requests may expand from one credit to a sample set |
| Large one-off credit arrives | The credit is treated as an “event” needing explanation | Reviews often ask why the business received it and how it’s evidenced |
| Owner funding increases suddenly | Questions link the sender and purpose to ownership/control | May coincide with wider verification if details have changed |
| Funds appear to pass through quickly | Questions focus on intermediary roles and counterparties | The review may broaden into a business model check |
| Cross-border inflows increase | Questions focus on counterparties and reason for transfer | International patterns can trigger deeper scrutiny |
| Cash-heavy patterns appear | Questions focus on the audit trail for cash-like activity | Evidence expectations can be higher due to limited traceability |
Scenario Table
| Scenario-level (what changed) | Process-level (what the firm is doing) | Outcome-level (what you experience) |
|---|---|---|
| New inflow type appears | Activity is re-mapped to the customer profile | “Explain this credit” questions start, evendb with a stable business |
| A single credit looks unusual | Transaction scrutiny is applied to the outlier | One item becomes a wider request if similar items exist |
| Ownership/control data is unclear | Customer records are reconciled and refreshed | Requests expand beyond transactions into control/structure |
| Jurisdictions/counterparties shift | Risk factors are reassessed | Cross-border funds trigger additional context questions |
| The account is in a routine review window | Periodic refresh and monitoring checks occur | Similar questions can reappear over time |
| Legal constraints apply | Communication is limited in sensitive contexts | Explanations of “why” may be high-level rather than specific |
Why firms sometimes can’t explain the trigger in detail
Even when a request feels simple (“please explain this money”), the reason a firm flagged the activity may not be fully shareable in real time. In the UK, “tipping off” concepts can constrain what businesses in the regulated sector communicate where disclosure could prejudice an investigation; the Law Society’s explainer gives an accessible overview of the risk and language around it (Tipping off and prejudicing an investigation (Law Society)).
In the Tide context, this aligns with Tide’s statement that it may be legally forbidden from providing updates during a review process (Routine reviews (Tide)). For how that affects communication during restrictions, see Why banks can’t explain restrictions (tipping off).
Tide Business Bank Account
Tide says it carries out routine reviews across accounts and may request information or documents as part of those checks (Routine reviews (Tide)).
Source of funds questions are one practical way these reviews test whether incoming funds align with how the business makes money and the activity profile.
For a separate, neutral overview of Tide’s account features and fees (not focused on reviews), see our Tide review.
Frequently Asked Questions
In most cases, it’s asking for the real-world reason behind a credit:
- What it represents (revenue, funding, refund, settlement, sale of an asset)
- How that fits the business’s activity
The emphasis is typically on this money, this time, rather than the long-run background of the owners.
Confusion often arises because “source of funds” can sound like “prove everything you’ve ever earned”. HMRC distinguishes source of funds from source of wealth in its supervision handbook, which is helpful context when interpreting the scope of a request (HMRC Economic Crime Supervision Handbook: Source of funds and source of wealth).
Routine reviews exist to check whether the account’s activity still matches what the provider understands about the business and how it makes money. Tide’s routine review description explicitly includes checking activity, how the account makes money, industries involved, and whether details have changed (Routine reviews (Tide)).
A routine review can surface questions even where a business is stable, because the review is testing alignment rather than investigating a specific wrongdoing. That is why source of funds questions often sit alongside broader document requests, as explained in Tide compliance review documents: what’s typically requested (and why it repeats).
The payments most likely to attract questions tend to have at least one “mismatch” feature:
- Unusually large size
- Unusual sender
- Unfamiliar reference text
- Cross-border origin
- Pattern that doesn’t look like the business’s normal inflows
The question is often less about amount and more about fit with the known profile.
Edge cases are common. For example, a legitimate business can receive a large one-off credit (insurance, a grant, a settlement) that looks unlike routine revenue. That’s where the explanation typically needs to focus on the underlying event rather than treating the payment as ordinary trading.
- Source of funds is typically about the origin of the money in a particular transaction.
- Source of wealth is broader: how an individual or entity accumulated wealth over time. In day-to-day reviews, these can overlap, but they are not the same question.
Where the two blur, it is often because owner funding is involved. A director loan into a business, for instance, can prompt both a transaction-level question (“what is this credit?”) and a higher-level question about the origin of the director’s funds. For the conceptual distinction, see Source of funds vs source of wealth: what banks mean.
When the explanation doesn’t fully resolve the mismatch, the usual pattern is follow-up questions or requests for additional context. This can feel repetitive, but it often reflects the provider trying to close a specific gap between the credit and the underlying activity.
If the review cannot be resolved, outcomes can include ongoing restrictions or account closure depending on the provider’s assessment and obligations. For how outcomes typically present and how “restricted” differs from “closed”, see Tide business account restricted vs closed: what it means and Tide account under review: stages, timelines, typical outcomes.
A single credit can be treated as a sample point: if one item looks inconsistent, the provider may test whether it is isolated or part of a pattern. That is why reviews sometimes expand from one payment to “show several examples” that demonstrate consistency.
This is also why source of funds questions often arrive in a wider “evidence pack” format, rather than as a single request. The broader pack concept (across banks and payment providers) is unpacked in Bank review evidence packs: what UK banks request ongoing.
Cross-border payments can change the risk factors associated with a transaction: different jurisdictions, different counterparties, and more complexity in understanding why funds moved internationally. That can increase the need for explanation even where the business is legitimate.
International activity can also create second-order questions: why suppliers/customers are overseas, why payments are routed through certain intermediaries, and whether the business model has shifted. For the common mechanics and reasons holds occur, see International payments under review: why cross-border transfers get held.
- A trading receipt is typically a customer payment for goods or services.
- A settlement credit is often a payout from an intermediary (for example, where customer payments are aggregated and then paid out after fees, refunds, or disputes).
The bank statement line can look similar in both cases, but the underlying mechanics are different.
This difference matters because it changes what “source” means: the immediate sender may be an intermediary, but the underlying funds may come from many customers.
That’s one reason source of funds questions sometimes become “explain the payment chain” questions and why requests can expand from one credit to platform-level reports.
In some contexts, detailed explanations can risk disclosing information that could prejudice an investigation, which is why communication can be constrained. The Law Society’s guide summarises how “tipping off” and “prejudicing an investigation” risks can apply in regulated-sector contexts (Tipping off and prejudicing an investigation (Law Society)).
Separately, Tide says that for legal reasons it may not be able to provide updates during the period it is reviewing the information provided (Routine reviews (Tide)). In practice, this can make a request feel less specific than the business expects, even where the provider’s internal question is narrow.
Repeat questions can happen for straightforward reasons: activity patterns evolve, new inflow types appear, ownership/control details change, or the provider is doing periodic refresh and ongoing monitoring. In other words, the question can recur because the facts that matter to the risk picture have moved on.
This is also why a source of funds request can reappear as part of a larger compliance review cycle. For how periodic re-checks work in established businesses, see Periodic KYC refreshes for established SMEs: why accounts get rechecked, and for when deeper packs apply, see Enhanced due diligence (EDD) for SMEs: triggers, checks, outcomes.
Source of funds questions are best understood as transaction narratives rather than moral judgements. Providers are trying to map “money in” to a coherent, evidenced story that matches the business’s known activity profile.
When that mapping breaks – because the sender is unexpected, the amount is unusual, the geography shifts, or the payment chain obscures origins – the fastest way to restore alignment is often to ask for an explanation of the funds.
The “repeat” effect usually comes from standardisation. Reviews use repeatable categories (trading, funding, third-party pass-through, cross-border) because those categories scale across many customers.
As soon as an account’s activity resembles a category that needs extra scrutiny, the same foundational questions can recur, even if the business itself hasn’t changed dramatically.
Related Content
