The 7 Documents Banks Ask For When You Cash Out Crypto

Why Banks Request These Documents

Under the Swiss Anti-Money Laundering Act (AMLA) and FINMA's supervisory framework, any financial intermediary processing a large crypto-to-fiat conversion must apply enhanced customer due diligence (ECDD). The regulatory logic is straightforward: crypto assets can move across borders instantly, pseudonymously, and without the intermediary paper trail that traditional wire transfers generate. Banks therefore require a reconstructed audit trail, documented before the funds are accepted, not after.

FATF Recommendation 10 mandates this customer due diligence framework globally. VQF-affiliated intermediaries like ALT.CO are bound by the same standards and apply them during the onboarding process, which means clients who work through a regulated intermediary arrive at the bank with the documentation already assembled.

Below is a precise breakdown of each document, what it must contain, why it is required, and common failure points.

Document 1: Government-Issued ID and Proof of Address

This is the baseline KYC layer. The bank or intermediary must verify that the person initiating the transaction is who they claim to be. Required items typically include:

• Current passport or national identity card, with an MRZ code
• Proof of residential address dated within 3 months (utility bill, bank statement, or official letter)
• CV dated and signed (for Source of Funds)
• For corporate entities: extract from the commercial register, articles of association, and identification of all UBOs (Ultimate Beneficial Owners) with more than 25% ownership

Document 2: Exchange Transaction Records (Source of Wealth)

Source of Wealth (SOW) documentation traces the specific path of the funds being converted. This is distinct from Source of Funds. For crypto cashouts, SOW requires:

• Complete trade history export from the exchange(s) used, showing acquisitions, disposals, and fees in chronological order
• Deposit and withdrawal records showing the fiat or crypto origin of funds on the exchange
• The timeline of portfolio growth, including key events (early mining rewards, bull market realisation, staking income)

Common friction point: partial exports, missing pages, or records from defunct exchanges (Mt.Gox, BTC-e, Cryptsy). Where exchange records cannot be produced, supplementary evidence, on-chain data, email correspondence, historical screenshots, must fill the gap. See our detailed guide on Source of Wealth vs. Source of Funds for the precise distinction banks apply.

Document 3: Source of Funds

Source of Funds (SOF) answers a broader question than SOW: how did the client accumulate their total net worth? For a crypto holder, this typically requires a written narrative, often 2-5 pages, that covers:

• Professional background and income history
• When and how crypto was first acquired: salary slips or other origin of funds used for the purchases
• The timeline of portfolio growth, including key events (early mining rewards, bull market realisation, staking income)

Document 4: Blockchain Analytics Report

This is the document most clients are unaware of, and the one that causes the most unexpected rejections. Before accepting a large crypto inflow, the bank's compliance team (or their external provider) runs the sending wallet address through a blockchain analytics platform: Chainalysis, Scorechain, Elliptic, TRM Labs, or equivalent.

The report scores the wallet against a risk taxonomy that includes:

• Direct or indirect exposure to sanctioned entities (OFAC SDN list, EU sanctions)
• Interaction with known darknet markets, ransomware wallets, or mixing services
• Transaction patterns consistent with layering or structuring
• Counterparty risk inherited from prior wallet interactions (even several hops back)

A wallet with even indirect exposure to flagged entities, through a chain of transactions, will produce a non-zero risk score. Banks typically apply their own internal threshold: any wallet above a certain risk percentile is rejected without exception. alt.co creates this report for you using partner blockchain forensic providers and derisks the high risk score if needed and appropriate.

Document 5: Wallet Ownership Proof (Satoshi Test or Message Signature)

The bank or intermediary must confirm that the person presenting the funds actually controls the originating wallet. This is done through a cryptographic proof-of-control: the client signs a specific message (typically containing the transaction reference and a timestamp) using their wallet, producing a verifiable signature. This process is commonly called the "Proof of Control" or wallet attestation. Alternatively clients can send a small and specified (by alt) amount of crypto to a requested wallet to prove ownership, this is the "Satoshi test" method of proof of control.

Document 6: Beneficial Ownership Declaration

The bank must establish that no undisclosed third party has a controlling interest in the funds being converted. Under AMLA Art. 4, financial intermediaries are required to identify the beneficial owner of all assets. For crypto transactions, this typically means:

• A signed declaration confirming the client is the sole beneficial owner of the funds
• Where a third party has contributed to the wallet balance (business partner, co-investor, family member), a separate disclosure and identification of that party
• For company-held crypto: a full corporate structure chart with UBO identification down to natural persons

In high-value transactions or where the bank's risk assessment flags ambiguity, the declaration may need to be notarised or accompanied by supporting evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

Related Topics

Need help with your crypto compliance?

Book a free consultation with our Swiss-regulated compliance team.

Book a Free Consultation

alt.co is a Geneva-based, Swiss-regulated financial intermediary (Altcoinomy SA) supervised by VQF and audited by BDO SA. We help crypto holders access private banking in Switzerland and Monaco.

Continue Reading