We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Why does Marcus by Goldman Sachs want inheritance documentation for opening a 4.90% fixed bond?
They asked for a bunch of documentation as proof of inheritance when I tried to open the account and chose inheritance as source of money, now I'm worried the product will get pulled while they get around to checking my uploaded documents, however long that takes.
Maybe next time in future I'll just pick Savings as source of money when opening a fixed bond. Because that's where it is really - in a savings account.
Comments
-
How large is the sum of money, and how many working days since you provided the evidence? They have a regulatory and legal obligation to establish source of funds. That is why they want the evidence.
If you had picked "savings", then they may well have requested bank statements showing that you indeed held that amount of money in savings accounts for the last X months, which would take the same amount of time to review.
0 -
Friday, I didn't specify how much I was going to deposit when I tried to open the fixed bond
Other institutions like Trading212 didn't ask for statements or anything when I opened an ISA last tax year and used savings as source.
0 -
KYC and AML. They are being vigilant. Have you see the penalties Banks can face if they fall foul of this? Not really something to complain about. Can’t see anything being pulled as your application is in.
0 -
We just went through an extended rigmarole when we deposited a large(ish) amount with LemFI in my partner's name. We said it was from savings.
They asked to see the savings evidence (all the evidentiary selectable options assume you had obtained a lump sum of money rather than having built up a savings pot of money over time).
Unfortunately the savings account evidence showed a large(ish) deposit some time before, and they wanted to know where that large deposit came from.
We showed the evidence that it was from (my) DB scheme PCLS.
They then wanted to know my partner's relationship with the DB scheme payment. We explained that I had the relationship but that we had decided to deposit some of the money into an account in my partners name (as you probably would where large sums are involved).
Eventually they accepted this but I was on the verge of just asking for our money back 🙃
Personal Responsibility - Sad but True
Sometimes.... I am like a dog with a bone2 -
Source of funds is the reason. You would have been asked with other providers as well.
If you had picked savings, then depending on the amount, you could have been asked for originating source of the savings. £10k probably not but £100k+, probably would.
Other institutions like Trading212 didn't ask for statements or anything when I opened an ISA last tax year and used savings as source.
They should have asked for source of funds as it is a mandatory requirement for AML if they are doing the job properly. Depending on the amount, further checks may or may not be required. Some questions may be quite passive and you may not realise you are being asked.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.1 -
I have opened numerous savings accounts ( including with Marcus) and have never been asked for an supporting documentation. There seems to be a certain randomness to it, although in general everyone is getting more vigilant about source of funds, and no doubt at some point I will get asked.
0 -
Source‑of‑funds and source of wealth requests are being driven mainly by the 2025–2026 AML reform package and updated FCA guidance
Over the last 18–24 months the UK has moved from “minimum compliance” towards a more explicitly risk‑based, evidence‑driven approach to customer due diligence, including source of funds and source of wealth. HM Treasury’s 2024 consultation on improving the Money Laundering Regulations and the Government’s subsequent reform announcements emphasised closing loopholes, clarifying obligations and ensuring CDD is better targeted at high‑risk activity. That direction of travel has been picked up by supervisors and the FCA, who now expect firms to be able to demonstrate that they understand where money in accounts and investments actually comes from, not just who the customer is.
The Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (Amendment) Regulations 2026 are the main recent legislative change to the UK MLRs. They came into force on 30 June 2026 and, among other things, refine when enhanced due diligence (EDD) must be applied, focusing more clearly on transactions that are unusually complex or unusually large given the nature of the transaction. This tighter wording encourages firms to look more closely at the economic rationale and funding of larger or atypical deposits and investments and to evidence that analysis, often through explicit source‑of‑funds checks. Some deposit takers and investment platforms moved to these standards earlier than others. 30th of June was the deadline to have them in place.
In parallel, the FCA has issued updated guidance that explicitly calls for greater clarification of source of wealth and source of funds for unusual or unexpected transactions, pushing firms to treat these as core elements of a risk‑based CDD process rather than optional add‑ons.
I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.8 -
Based on other threads, Trading212 come back and do thorough source of wealth checks on a cross-section of individuals after they have their money, sometimes at the point they are trying to access their funds. I know which of the two approaches I would prefer.
I think if they haven't reserved your account and cannot offer the rate at the time you clear compliance, you could complain and seek compensation for the difference in interest.
1 -
I expect to have a similar issue next year, but the opposite way round.
3 large fixed rate savings pots are maturing and I want to buy a house.
When I opened the accounts I used proceeds from house sale, I was asked no more questions.
0 -
Source of Funds is something I'm starting to worry about. I've researched many aspects of a possible return to the UK, but I'm still worried about the practicalities of funding a new UK bank account. I'll have a large lump sum (maybe > £1M) from the sale of my home that I would use to buy a new home in the UK. I'll probably transfer using Wise and was wondering how I would document Source of Funds and also if it's better to make one transfer or several smaller ones over a few months. I would also be making regular transfers of US based pensions, Social Security, annuity payments and maybe GIA dividends, so how are those documented?
And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.1K Spending & Discounts
- 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 605.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards