SFSource-of-Funds Desk Open the partner account
Source-of-Funds Desk / The level
Bands, not lines

The level a check starts at — and why there is no single number

Operators publish trigger bands, not exact lines: many begin lighter checks in the low thousands of cumulative deposits, with deeper reviews commonly sitting higher. Affordability is different again — it compares staking with income over a period, so two players can reach the same deposit figure and face different checks.

Affiliate disclosure and risk warning

Every affiliate link on this page and in the header is a sponsored link to a partner operator, and we may be paid if you open an account through it, at no extra cost to you. That link pays us; it does not improve any decision, it is not a ranking, and it is never a recommendation to play. Nothing on this page is financial, legal or tax advice, and nothing here is a way to avoid a source-of-funds or affordability check, to satisfy one without the documents, or to predict how one will end. 18+ only. Every stake is money at risk and can be lost in full. The mechanics explained here — what a source-of-funds or affordability check is, what triggers one, the deposit and income levels operators publish, which documents count as evidence, what happens to an account and any withdrawal while a check is open, what your options are if you decline, and how long a decision should take — are general descriptions of how that scrutiny usually works, not a statement of the terms, thresholds or timelines that apply to you: the triggers, the evidence required and the timelines differ between operators, jurisdictions and regulators and change over time, and a decision is made by the operator, not by this site. This page does not name any operator and is not a substitute for the operator's terms, any regulator's rules or advice from a qualified adviser. Nothing here is a way to guarantee an outcome, a way to unlock a frozen balance, or a way around any operator's terms, any regulator's requirement or any law. Never stake money you cannot afford to lose, never borrow to play, and never chase losses with a larger stake. Gambling can cause serious financial harm, including debt and damage to relationships and mental health. Free and confidential support is available in most countries through national gambling-harm helplines, for players and for the people around them.

File 01

01Why operators publish bands, not a single threshold

A published line would be trivially gamed: deposit £9,999 to stay under a £10,000 rule. So policies describe bands, and they combine a deposit total with other signals. The practical consequence is that the moment a check begins is not fully predictable from the outside — which is why players are sometimes surprised.

Where published trigger levels usually sit A horizontal scale of cumulative deposits with marker bands: many operators begin light checks in the low thousands, deeper source-of-funds checks commonly sit higher, and affordability checks are usually tied to income rather than a fixed deposit figure CUMULATIVE DEPOSITS, TYPICAL TRIGGER BANDS £0 £1k £5k £10k £25k+ SOURCE OF FUNDS commonly begins here for many accounts DEEPER REVIEW LIGHT / AUTOMATED AFFORDABILITY IS A RATIO, NOT A FIXED SUM It compares deposits and losses with income over a period — e.g. £3,000 staked in a month against £1,800 net income. So two players reaching the same deposit figure can face different checks: the level is a band, not a line. ILLUSTRATIVE BANDS ONLY — PUBLISHED LEVELS ARE SET BY THE OPERATOR AND ITS REGULATOR AND CHANGE OVER TIME.
Typical trigger bands for cumulative deposits: lighter automated checks lower down, source-of-funds reviews commonly higher, and a deeper review beyond that. Affordability is separate and tracks income. Illustrative only.

What is consistent across operators

The direction: the more you deposit in total, and the faster you deposit it, the more likely a financial check becomes. The exact figure is not, and treating any single number as universal leads to surprises.

File 02

02Two measures: a cumulative total, and a ratio

Source of funds tends to be measured against a cumulative total: how much has moved through the account, in what period, and from where. Affordability tends to be measured against a ratio: how much is being staked or lost relative to income, over a recent window. The first is answered with documents about origin; the second with a picture of your finances.

The two measures at a glance
MeasureWhat it countsWhat answers it
Cumulative depositsTotal moved in, over a stated periodDocuments evidencing the source of those deposits
Staking vs incomeDeposits and losses relative to income over a windowIncome and outgoings evidence for the same window

That difference is why a modest deposit total can still raise an affordability question, and why a large deposit total can be closed with a single clean bank statement: the measures are not the same, and neither is the evidence.

File 03

03A worked example, so nothing is asserted that you cannot re-derive

Suppose an account has moved £4,500 through it in a quarter, and the operator publishes a source-of-funds band beginning at £4,000 of cumulative deposits in a rolling three-month period. The account is inside the band, so a check is expected rather than surprising.

Now suppose the same account also shows £3,000 deposited in the most recent month against net income of £1,800 over the same month. The staking-to-income ratio is roughly 1.67 — more than was earned in the window — which is the kind of figure an affordability question is designed to examine. Neither number is a verdict; together they explain why both questions can legitimately arrive.

Period3 moThe window the operator names
Cumulative deposits£4,500Inside a £4,000 band
Monthly staking£3,000Against £1,800 net income
Ratio≈ 1.67Staking ÷ income in the window

What the arithmetic is for

Not to decide whether a check was fair, but to show that the trigger is a comparison, not a mystery. If you can reconstruct the comparison the operator made, you can predict which documents will close it — and you can challenge the comparison with evidence if it is wrong.

File 04

04Why the level differs between operators and over time

Four things move the level, which is why a check that surprises you on one site may never have appeared on another.

LICENCEThe regulator that licenses the operator sets the duties, and different jurisdictions set them differently.
POLICYThe operator’s own risk appetite and internal policy sit on top of the regulatory floor.
MARKETThe payment methods the account uses, and the countries it is funded from, change the source picture.
TIMEPolicies are revised. A quiet level last year can be active this year, without any change in your play.

The consequence for planning

You cannot manage your account around a universal number, because there is not one. What you can do is keep documents that would answer a source-of-funds question in advance — a recent payslip, and a bank statement for the period you deposited most heavily.

File 05

05How to find the level that applies to you

The level that matters is the one in the operator’s policy, for your jurisdiction, read now. Three pages on the operator’s own site will usually give you it.

  • The AML or source-of-funds policy page. This usually states the trigger bands and the documents the operator asks for.
  • The responsible-gambling or safer-play page. This usually states the affordability checks and any limits the operator may apply.
  • The complaints and disputes page. This tells you the escalation route if the level is applied incorrectly or the review stalls.
Next

The evidence that closes a check

Which documents count, what makes one unacceptable, and why a partial submission restarts the review instead of advancing it.

  1. 1General information about mechanisms, for adults; not financial, legal or tax advice.
  2. 2The figures in the worked example are illustrative. Published bands are set by the operator and its regulator and change over time.
  3. 3Nothing here is a way to structure deposits to avoid a check, or a prediction of any operator’s policy.