Source of Funds explains the origin and route of the specific money used in a transaction. Source of Wealth explains how a person accumulated their overall net wealth over time. A credible pack uses a dated narrative, primary event documents, tax records where relevant, bank or ledger movements and a reconciliation that bridges the event to the current balance.
Two questions, two evidence scales
For a €300,000 property payment, Source of Funds asks where that €300,000 came from and how it reached the paying account. Source of Wealth asks whether the customer’s broader financial position is plausible—for example, accumulated business profits, employment, inheritance, a company sale or investment gains.
Institutions apply a risk-sensitive approach, so the depth varies with customer, country, product, size, complexity and risk indicators. PEP relationships and other higher-risk cases can require stronger establishment and verification of both wealth and funds. The bank’s request is therefore not a fixed European checklist.
Build a chain, not a document pile
Start with a short chronology: event, gross amount, taxes and costs, net proceeds, transfers, investments and present balance. Number each statement and point it to a source. The goal is that a reviewer can move from explanation to document to bank movement without guessing.
Typical primary evidence includes employment contracts and payslips, audited accounts and dividend resolutions, a signed sale agreement and closing statement, probate or inheritance documents, broker statements and tax filings. A self-written letter, screenshot or spreadsheet can index the evidence but normally cannot replace it.
- Identity and ownership of the recipient
- Legal event that generated the value
- Amount before and after tax or costs
- Bank, broker or ledger route to the current account
- Explanation and evidence for gaps or conversions
Reconciliation is where most packs succeed or fail
Names, dates, currencies and amounts must reconcile. If a business was sold for €2 million but only €1.3 million reached the owner, show debt repayment, tax, escrow, fees and retained proceeds. If funds moved through several accounts, provide the relevant statements and a transfer table rather than asking the bank to infer the path.
For crypto-derived capital, preserve acquisition records, wallet addresses, exchange exports, transaction hashes, fiat on- and off-ramp statements and the applicable tax treatment. Blockchain visibility does not by itself identify the lawful economic source, while a tax return alone may not trace the particular coins sold.
Respond without over-sharing or creating contradictions
Ask what period, amount and relationship the bank is reviewing, then provide the minimum complete chain. Use a secure channel and redact unrelated account numbers or personal data only where the bank accepts it. Never edit source documents or create backdated agreements.
If evidence is unavailable, state what is missing, why and which independent substitute exists. The bank may still decline; no pack guarantees acceptance. Legal privilege, data protection, tax positions and records from several countries can require specialist review.
Questions clients ask
Sometimes it supports the story, but it may not show the specific event or route to the money used. Banks often need event documents and transaction records as well.
The institution may need to assess whether the transaction is plausible in the customer’s wider profile, particularly where size, complexity or other risk factors are higher.
It can corroborate a narrative but usually does not replace reliable primary evidence. Public information may also be incomplete or outdated and should be reconciled carefully.