We Sent Crypto Proceeds to Six Bank Accounts. Two Asked Questions.

We sent identical amounts from a licensed European crypto provider to six different bank accounts across four institutions, and recorded what happened. We used a crypto to fiat exchange as a control, since its terms are published rather than quoted on request.

The outcomes

Three arrived with no contact at all.

One arrived and generated a call two days later asking what the payment was for. Resolved in the call.

One was held for four working days pending a source of funds question, released after we supplied documents.

One was returned, with a fee deducted, and the account holder later received a notice of closure.

What distinguished them

The three that passed silently were at institutions with published policies on crypto-related payments, and in two of those cases the account holder had told the bank in advance.

The one returned was at an institution with no published policy, receiving an unexpected large payment into an account whose ordinary activity was much smaller.

Advance notice was decisive

In every case where the account holder had emailed their relationship manager beforehand, describing the expected payment and its source, there were no questions at all. The receiving side we measured through a provider handling crypto settlement for property transactions, where settlement is included.

Where no notice was given, the outcome depended on the institution.

This is a free control and it worked every time we used it.

What the questions actually asked

Not whether crypto is legitimate. Where this specific money came from.

The documents that resolved it: evidence of how the crypto was acquired, a statement from where it was held showing ownership, and the provider’s conversion record.

Three documents, supplied together, closed the question in one exchange. Supplied one at a time, it would have taken a week.

The amount relative to the account

The held and returned cases were both payments far larger than the account’s normal activity.

This is not crypto-specific. Any unexpected large inbound payment triggers the same review. The crypto element makes the explanation slightly harder, not the trigger different.

What we would do

Ask the bank in writing before the first settlement whether they accept inbound payments from licensed crypto asset service providers.

Give advance notice of anything large.

Keep the three documents filed per conversion.

And use a provider whose name and licence the bank can verify, because the first question the bank asks is who sent it. A payment from a licensed European crypto to fiat provider is a considerably shorter conversation than one from a platform the bank cannot identify.