The casino is asking for source of funds. What do I do?
Provide it, keep a copy of everything you send, and expect the withdrawal to stay pending until the check clears. A source-of-funds request is an escalation beyond ordinary identity verification: instead of proving who you are, you are being asked to show where the money came from, usually with payslips, bank statements or a sale record. Operators are generally required to run these checks under anti-money-laundering obligations, so the request itself is normal and is not evidence you have done anything wrong. The part worth knowing is that almost nobody publishes the trigger. Only 3 of the 32 operators we track publish any numeric verification ceiling at all, and those cover basic identity checks rather than source-of-funds escalation. Shuffle is the one operator whose AML policy describes its trigger in writing, and what it says is that the threshold is "dependent on the account's risk characterisation" and is assessed at "Shuffle's sole discretion", which is a published statement that no number exists (all read 2026-09-01). So the honest position is that the request is legitimate, the timing is unpredictable by design, and there is no threshold you can stay under to avoid it.
Being asked for source of funds is alarming, and it is usually routine. The genuine problem is not the request. It is that operators almost never publish what sets it off, so it arrives without warning after you have already won.
The evidence
| Operator | What its own terms say about the trigger | Is a number published? |
|---|---|---|
| Shuffle | AML policy: withdrawals may be suspended for due diligence once the account reaches a threshold "dependent on the account's risk characterisation", assessed at "Shuffle's sole discretion". | No, and it says so explicitly |
| Spartans | KYC and enhanced due diligence gate withdrawals, with enhanced due diligence at 10,000 USD and above. | Yes, for enhanced due diligence |
| mBit | Verification is triggered on any payout above 1 BTC, plus discretionary anti-money-laundering checks at lower amounts. | Partly: 1 BTC for verification, nothing for the discretionary layer |
| Spin Samurai | T&C 11.2 reserves the right to verify identity before processing any withdrawal, and states withdrawals "will remain pending until all required verification steps are completed". | No |
| Everyone else we track | 29 of 32 publish no numeric verification ceiling of any kind, so the trigger is discretionary and the wording is quoted per operator on our KYC page. | No |
How we know
Every clause above is quoted from the operator's own terms or AML policy with the read date on the record, and the ceiling count is taken from a typed field rather than inferred from the wording. WHAT WE WILL NOT PUBLISH, and this one is deliberate: we will not tell you how to structure withdrawals to stay under a verification threshold, or how to avoid a source-of-funds check. People do search for that, and the honest reasons to refuse are that it is the mechanics of money laundering, and that in practice it works against the person doing it, because splitting withdrawals is itself a documented risk signal that brings the check forward rather than avoiding it. WHAT ACTUALLY HELPS: send complete documents the first time rather than in instalments, since each partial response restarts the review; keep your own copy of what you sent and when; and if the operator has a published cap, check whether your balance is above it, because a cap and a verification hold look identical from the player side and have completely different fixes. If a request arrives and the money matters to you more than it comfortably should, that is worth sitting with separately from the paperwork.