You’re standing at a bank counter or staring at your phone screen, doing the most ordinary thing imaginable: moving money from one of your accounts to another. Current account to savings. Savings to an investment account. Nothing exotic. Nothing secret.
And yet the system stops you.
An extra ID check. A delay. A message saying the transfer is “under review.” In some cases, the account is temporarily frozen altogether. Suddenly, a routine click feels like you’ve crossed an invisible line.
The question that shocks people most is always the same:
How can transferring money between my own accounts be a problem?
The answer is uncomfortable, but important: it’s not the ownership of the accounts that matters anymore. It’s the pattern.
Why “Innocent” Transfers Can Suddenly Look Suspicious
For most people, internal transfers are muscle memory. Salary arrives, money moves to savings, some goes to rent, some to investments. The apps are designed to feel frictionless.
Behind that smooth interface, however, banks are running continuous monitoring systems. These systems don’t think like humans. They don’t see intent. They see behavioural patterns.
They map:
- Frequency of transfers
- Amounts and round numbers
- Direction (back and forth between the same accounts)
- Countries involved
- Links between personal, joint, and business accounts
When that map starts to resemble known money-laundering or tax-evasion схемes, alarms go off — even if every account involved belongs to the same person.
This is where many people get blindsided. They assume identity protects them. In reality, modern financial regulation focuses far more on behaviour than on names.
A Real-World Scenario That Catches People Out
Consider Lara, 36, who opened an online brokerage account in another EU country. To fund it, she sent money from her main account to a secondary account in her own name, then onward to the broker.
Three transfers. Same person. No third party.
From her perspective, it was tidy and logical.
From the bank’s perspective, it looked like circular movement of funds across borders, a classic red flag used to obscure the trail of money. One Monday morning, both accounts were frozen pending review. Rent was due that week. Access to funds vanished overnight.
This is how most people learn the hard way: not through warnings, but through blocks.
Are Transfers Between Your Own Accounts Really “Forbidden”?
This is where headlines often sound misleading.
No law says you are generally forbidden from transferring money between your own accounts. That would be absurd and unworkable. You absolutely have the right to move your money.
What is forbidden — and aggressively enforced — is using chains of personal or related accounts in a way that:
- Obscures the origin of funds
- Masks the destination of funds
- Mimics techniques used in money laundering
- Blurs personal and business finances
- Circumvents tax, reporting, or sanctions rules
When internal transfers start to resemble these behaviours, banks are legally required to intervene. Not allowed to — required.
At that point, the transfer isn’t treated as neutral anymore. It’s treated as a tool that could be misused, even unintentionally.
Why Banks React So Hard (and So Fast)
From the outside, a blocked transfer feels arbitrary or even accusatory. From the inside, it’s defensive.
Banks face massive penalties if regulators decide they failed to stop suspicious activity. Fines can reach into the billions. Individual employees can be sanctioned. Entire banking licences can be at risk.
That’s why systems are designed to err on the side of caution. When something looks off, the safest option is to freeze first and ask questions later.
This explains why:
- You may not get a detailed explanation immediately
- Staff may seem vague or evasive
- The review process can feel slow and impersonal
It’s not about judging you. It’s about reducing risk.
The Transfers Most Likely to Trigger Red Flags
Certain habits dramatically increase the likelihood of scrutiny:
Repeated back-and-forth transfers
Moving the same amounts between the same accounts multiple times a month.
Circular routes
Money leaving one account and returning through another under the same or a related name.
Round sums
Frequent transfers of clean, identical amounts (e.g. €5,000 exactly, again and again).
Mixed personal and business flows
Using personal accounts to move money linked to freelance or company activity.
Cross-border hops
Transfers between countries, even within the EU, especially when repeated.
Rapid movement
Funds entering and leaving an account within hours or days, with no clear purpose.
None of these are illegal on their own. Together, they can look very problematic.
How to Reduce the Risk Without Freezing Your Life
The key shift is mental: treat bank transfers like formal transactions that leave a permanent story behind, not like moving cash between pockets.
A few habits make a big difference:
Define clear roles for each account
One for salary and bills. One for savings. One for investments. One for business. Avoid mixing purposes.
Limit unnecessary zigzags
Fewer, predictable transfers are safer than constant micro-movements.
Keep explanations simple
If you can’t explain a transfer path in one sentence, reconsider it.
Warn your bank in advance
Large or unusual transfers, especially cross-border, are less likely to be blocked if the bank knows they’re coming.
Document everything
Payslips, contracts, invoices, inheritance papers, tax returns. If asked, speed matters.
Banks often state this explicitly in their contracts:
“The bank may refuse or block transactions between accounts of the same or related clients if such transactions hinder identification of the origin or destination of funds.”
Dry wording. Very real consequences.
Why Couples and Families Get Caught Too
Another common trap is treating transfers between partners or relatives like instant messages.
Ten small transfers in a day. Notes like “for later” or “thanks.” Money bouncing back and forth.
To humans, this looks normal. To monitoring systems, it looks chaotic and opaque.
Joint finances are fine. Constant, unclear micro-movements are not.
Can a Bank Close Your Account Over This?
Yes.
If a bank decides the risk is too high, or if explanations are unclear or incomplete, it can terminate the relationship. This often happens quietly, with notice, and little room for appeal.
That’s why prevention matters more than arguing afterward.
The Real Test to Ask Yourself
Before confirming a transfer, pause for two seconds and ask:
- Would this make sense to someone reviewing my statement six months from now?
- Can I clearly explain why this money moved this way?
- Am I doing this because it’s convenient — or because it’s genuinely necessary?
If the answer is clear, you’re already reducing risk.
If your thought is “it’s all in my name, so who cares,” that’s often the warning sign.
So What’s the Truth Behind the Headline?
Internal transfers are not illegal.
They are not automatically forbidden.
But using internal transfers in a way that obscures financial reality is effectively prohibited, and banks are empowered — and obligated — to stop it.
The shift is subtle but profound:
ownership no longer protects you. Coherence does.
Your bank account tells a story. The more linear and understandable that story is, the less likely anyone is to interrupt it mid-sentence.
Key Takeaways
| Key Point | Detail | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Internal transfers are monitored | Banks scrutinise movements between your own accounts | Explains why “simple” transfers get blocked |
| Behaviour matters more than identity | Patterns can trigger alerts even under the same name | Helps avoid accidental red flags |
| Circular movements are risky | Back-and-forth or multi-hop paths look suspicious | Encourages cleaner money flows |
| Communication helps | Informing banks reduces surprise blocks | Keeps control over large transfers |
