A useful crypto source-of-funds file explains how the amount was obtained, shows that you received it and connects it to the transfer being reviewed. A wallet screenshot or transaction hash usually answers only part of that story. Follow the actual reviewer’s request, use genuine records and identify missing links explicitly rather than assuming one document is accepted everywhere.
Define the question before collecting the files
Write the transaction or deposit under review at the top of your working index: date, asset, network, amount and account or order reference. Then record the question the service asked. Identity, source of funds and source of wealth are related but different checks. Uploading a passport does not explain how a payment was funded, and a trading history does not necessarily answer a question about your wider financial background.
AUSTRAC’s public explanation distinguishes funds for a specific transaction from the origins of overall wealth. It also explains that the immediately preceding account is not the underlying source. These definitions help organize an explanation; the Australian guidance is not a universal document list or a statement that every reader is subject to the same jurisdiction’s rules.
If the request says only provide source of funds, ask through the service’s established review channel which transaction and period it concerns. Clarifying scope is more useful than sending every financial file you own. It also helps you see whether the request actually came from the service responsible for the account or order, rather than an unrelated person offering to sell a clearance certificate.
Connect acquisition, receipt and movement
Build a short chain of evidence rather than a pile of screenshots. One record may explain the economic event; another may show the money arrived; exchange and wallet records can connect that money to the crypto under review. A document can perform more than one role, but check what it actually establishes. A contract describing a future payment is not the same as a record of that payment being received.
| Stated source | Evidence about acquisition | Evidence about receipt | Link to the reviewed crypto | Common unresolved gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Employment income | Relevant employer or payroll record | Account record showing the income arrived | Acquisition and transfer records for the crypto | The funding transfer is shown but the income is not |
| Sale of an asset | Sale or settlement record identifying the transaction | Record of the proceeds being received | The subsequent purchase or transfer path | An agreement is supplied without evidence of settlement |
| Gift or inheritance | Appropriate record explaining the transfer and parties | Receipt of the funds or assets | Records connecting those assets to the current amount | The explanation identifies a sender but not the event |
| Earlier crypto purchase | Exchange purchase or trade record | Account ownership and the resulting asset record | Withdrawal and relevant wallet transactions | A withdrawal is visible but the purchase record is absent |
| Mining or staking proceeds | Relevant activity or payout records | Records showing rewards were actually received | The transfers carrying those assets onward | An earnings estimate is mistaken for a completed payout |
These are evidence roles, not promises that a particular combination will be approved. Ask the reviewer which records fit your case. If part of the path passed through an account you no longer access, say so and request the available historical export from that provider. Do not fill the gap with a recreated statement that appears to have been issued by somebody else.
Kraken’s document explanation provides a practical example of this distinction: evidence of entitlement may need a separate record showing receipt. Its examples also include exchange and reward records. Those are Kraken’s requirements and examples; they are useful context, not permission to substitute them for another platform’s current request.
Make the transitions readable
Keep original provider exports and an accompanying index. For each step, identify the relevant page or row, its date and the transaction it connects to. Preserve the asset and network names as supplied by the records. A ticker by itself may not identify the network, and a bank reference is not a blockchain transaction ID. Explain the relationship instead of expecting the reviewer to infer it from matching filenames.
Do not force every amount to match exactly. Trades, conversion rates, partial purchases, fees and several transfers can create legitimate differences that need explanation. Show which record accounts for each difference. Preserve the source timezone if available and distinguish the time of a bank entry, an exchange trade and blockchain inclusion; do not invent timestamps to make a cleaner sequence.
Consider a fictional user, Elena. She bought crypto using accumulated employment income, withdrew it to her wallet and later used part of it for an exchange. The final wallet transaction is relevant, but it does not alone establish the earlier purchase. Elena’s index connects the payroll receipt, acquisition record, withdrawal and later transfer, while identifying the part of the original holding involved in the current review.
Share relevant evidence without changing its meaning
Check the reviewer’s requirements for names, dates, issuers, amounts, statement period and permitted redactions. Crypto.com’s source-of-funds page illustrates that some sensitive information may be covered while the relevant inflows and outflows remain readable. Do not generalize that into permission to remove the very entries needed to explain the source, or into a rule that every service accepts an edited screenshot.
Retain the originals and identify any permitted disclosure copy as such. Use the authenticated upload process specified by the service, not a new website supplied by an unsolicited helper. A reviewer should not need your recovery phrase or private keys to inspect financial records. If a request appears broader than the stated review, ask for clarification rather than providing unrelated relatives’ documents or complete account access by default.
- Identify the specific transaction, period and question in the review.
- List the real acquisition event and locate the corresponding original record.
- Show receipt separately where the acquisition record does not prove it.
- Connect relevant bank, exchange and wallet records without confusing their identifiers.
- Explain amount and date differences with evidence, marking unavailable records as missing.
- Follow the reviewer’s disclosure and upload requirements, then retain a record of what you submitted.
An organized file is not a clearance guarantee
Coinbase’s account-review guidance says requirements depend on the customer’s situation and that providing information does not guarantee approval. Treat a further question as a request to resolve a particular gap. Re-uploading the same unclear record without addressing the reason does not make the explanation more complete, and a certificate purchased elsewhere does not replace the service’s decision.
For KOT.CASH, the AML policy describes risk-based review and possible requests for identity or source-of-funds information. Review the service workflow before a simple swap and keep the order reference with its funding transaction. No-account exchange does not remove compliance checks; suspicious activity can lead to a pause. This checklist organizes genuine evidence and does not promise a particular document list, approval or completion time for your order.
FAQ
Does a crypto source-of-funds check require more than a transaction hash?
A hash helps identify an onchain movement, but it does not by itself explain how you originally obtained the assets. The reviewer may need acquisition and receipt records linked to that movement.
What is the difference between source of funds and source of wealth?
Source of funds concerns the amount used for a particular transaction. Source of wealth concerns how your overall assets accumulated, so evidence answering one question may not fully answer the other.
Is proof of source of funds the same on every crypto platform?
No: document and disclosure requirements depend on the platform, review and applicable circumstances. Use its current authenticated request rather than assuming another exchange’s checklist guarantees acceptance.