A bank has sent you a letter requiring you to confirm the source of funds in your account — this is not a formality, but an obligation of the financial institution to its regulator. An incorrect or untimely response can result in your account being frozen, even if the funds are completely legal. The difference between a frozen account and a resolved issue often comes down not to your situation itself, but to how the response is compiled and presented.
What is Compliance and Why Banks Send These Requests
Compliance is not a quirk of a particular manager, but a bank’s obligation to its regulator, who monitors the transparency of all processes. European rules require banks to know their customers and understand where their money comes from. These are two procedures: KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering).
When a bank sends a request, it is not acting on its own initiative — it is fulfilling an obligation that, if neglected, results in multi-million-euro fines. This is important to understand from the start, because it determines the approach: the bank acts as an enforcer of regulations, and you should communicate with it in the language of documents.
Two Questions That Are Often Confused
Banks ask two different things that most people conflate.
The first is Source of Funds. This is a question about the specific money that arrived in your account. Where exactly did this particular payment come from? Sold a flat — you need the sale and purchase agreement. Received a salary — employment contract and bank statement. Received dividends — the dividend decision. The question is narrow: where did this sum come from?
The second is Source of Wealth. This is a question about your overall economic picture. How did you accumulate your wealth in total? For example: 20 years of employment, sale of a previous business, inheritance. This is a broad, biographical question.
The distinction is fundamental: a person responding to a source of wealth inquiry sends a bank statement and salary certificate — answering about a specific payment when asked about the entire history of accumulation. Formally, documents are attached, but substantively the answer does not close the issue, and the inquiry comes again while the account remains under restrictions.
Why This Topic Has Become Critical Now
European anti-money laundering rules categorize countries by risk level. For clients whose funds, citizenship, and business are connected to so-called high-risk jurisdictions, banks are obliged to apply enhanced due diligence. The list of such jurisdictions is reviewed regularly.
In 2026, changes were made that expanded the circle of clients subject to enhanced due diligence. In practice, enhanced due diligence means the bank thoroughly reviews both the source of funds and the source of wealth, and the decision to continue the relationship is made at the level of senior management, not a routine manager.
Five Rules for Responding to a Bank Request
First — respond with documents. The compliance department works from a checklist, and a paragraph with your history will not close it. You need papers, statements, contracts, tax returns, and transaction confirmations.
Typical sources require:
- Salary: employment contract, statement of income received, tax certificate for the period
- Business income: company account statements, dividend decision, tax returns, audited accounts for large sums
- Sale of real estate or other assets: sale and purchase agreement, confirmation of funds received into your account
- Inheritance: certificate and documents on the inherited property
- Accumulated savings over years: statements and declarations spanning several years, not just the last month
Second — respond with a complete package at once. Each new round of correspondence adds weeks to the verification process. If documents are sent in portions, each portion is reviewed anew and the process stretches out. You need to compile one clean set of documents that answers the question completely and send it all at once.
Third — meet the deadline. The inquiry has a deadline, and it has legal significance. Silence is interpreted by the bank unambiguously: the source of funds cannot be confirmed. It is often silence, not lack of documents, that leads to account freezing. Even if you cannot gather everything by the deadline, the right move is to make contact and indicate that documents are being prepared, rather than disappear.
Fourth — do not attempt to move money while under review. When an account is under inquiry or already frozen, any attempt to urgently transfer funds to another account or close the account is treated as circumventing controls. This turns a routine check into a suspicious operation, which the bank is already obliged to report to financial intelligence. The instinct to get your money while you still can works directly against you.
Fifth — maintain logic and proportionality. The regulator and bank look not only at legality but at whether the picture makes sense. If your stated income does not match account turnover, if deposits look unconvincing against declared sources, and documents are formally present but the question remains. Your answer should form a coherent story where documents corroborate each other.
When the Right Answer Does Not Guarantee Success
A proper response to a request helps in most cases, but not in 100% of situations. If funds truly cannot be documented — not because you violated anything, but because confirmation was not preserved — no template will help.
Such situations are solved by a history of fund origins assembled in advance, sometimes a month before the issue even arises. They cannot be closed in a day. Moreover, a bank is not always obliged to explain the reason for the freeze. If restrictions are related to reporting to financial intelligence, the bank may legally say nothing. Then you are answering blind, and the cost of every step increases.
A Real-World Example
An account was frozen after business sale proceeds were transferred to a European account. The funds were completely legitimate, but the response to the bank’s inquiry was a short letter: “sold the company, here’s the amount” — without a sale agreement, without confirmed valuation, without tax documentation. The bank saw a large deposit with Russian connections and a three-line explanation — and kept the account under restrictions.
Later, a complete package was assembled: the agreement, payment confirmations, tax documents on the transaction, all of which formed a coherent picture of the fund origins. The issue was resolved. The situation was clean from the start. The problem was not the source of funds itself, but the format of the response.
Comments
Reader experience is useful, but it is not advice: check the rules on the official site.
No account needed: click Sign in, type any name, and you are done.