DISCOVER
Eraj Alisherov
The Money Flow That Killed the Deal
Why Banks Reject Fintech Partnerships
October 2026 | Perspective from Cross-Border Financial Negotiations
— I want to ask every fintech, EMI, PSP, and money service business one question: when a bank stopped answering your emails, were you certain it understood what would happen to the money once it entered your account? Not your licensing story. Not your beautifully written pitch deck. The actual money: who sends it, who owns it, who receives it, and whose customers stand behind it. I have seen how much effort this industry puts into finding the right introduction. I am increasingly convinced that many institutions spend too little effort explaining the transaction they want that introduction to make possible.
SERVICES
Cross-Border Banking · Financial Partnerships · Risk Intelligence
The Silence
You know the familiar sequence. Someone makes the introduction. The first emails are friendly. The bank requests a presentation, your licence, an ownership chart, a compliance policy, and a rough volume estimate. Your team sends the documents. Then you wait. You follow up. You offer another call. The answer becomes "under review," or worse, nothing at all.
It is tempting to call this weak communication. Sometimes it is. But a bank may also have reached a point where the commercial team can no longer explain the proposed activity to its own risk colleagues. The relationship has not necessarily been formally declined. It has simply lost its internal sponsor.
Here is the distinction I want readers to remember: a bank cannot price a flow it cannot explain, and it cannot confidently approve a risk it cannot see.
The New Conversation
Ask the Right Question, Get the Right Answer
On 15 July 2026, the Wolfsberg Group published guidance for banks providing services to non-bank payment service providers. It is industry guidance, not a universal law or automatic onboarding checklist. Still, it puts a useful spotlight on what banks need to understand: the payment provider's real business model, the flow of funds, the jurisdictions involved, the customers behind those flows, and the controls used to manage financial crime risk. This is more than another industry acronym. A commercial conversation can sound promising while the internal risk discussion stalls. "We process cross-border payments" is a marketing sentence, not a transaction map.
A bank wants to know what its account is being used for. That answer changes dramatically depending on whether the provider is moving its own money, processing payments for its customers, or collecting and redistributing money for the customers of yet another financial institution.
Where the Deal Actually Breaks
I would separate the difficult conversations into four categories. The first is identity: who owns and controls the institution, what it is authorised to do, and where it operates. The second is activity: which customers use it, which currencies and corridors it serves, and what volumes it reasonably expects. The third is visibility: whether the bank can identify the true originator, the beneficiary, and the purpose of the transfer where required. The fourth is responsibility: who conducts screening, monitoring, escalation, and investigation when something goes wrong.
A polished KYC questionnaire may answer the first category very well and barely touch the other three. That is why "we have already sent the KYC" does not necessarily mean the bank has enough to make a decision.
And there is a commercial dimension people dislike admitting. A bank may understand your controls and still decide that the revenue from your volumes does not justify the cost of servicing the relationship. It may also have a risk appetite, product restriction, geography restriction, or internal strategy that makes the answer no. Good documentation cannot manufacture demand where none exists.
The Wrong Way to Negotiate
Here is a mistake a negotiator can make without noticing it. The bank asks, "Do you process third-party payments?" The negotiator says, "We can start with our own funds." The bank asks for expected monthly turnover. The negotiator gives an ambitious number to make the relationship look important. The bank then asks how the money will move, and the description changes again.
I understand the instinct. You want the deal to stay alive. But each changing description forces the bank to reassess the proposal. If the facts keep moving, confidence moves in the opposite direction. A smaller, honestly scoped pilot often makes a more credible opening than a very large forecast with no clear operational basis.
The Land of Ajam
''The correct answer is not to disguise activity or simplify a customer flow into a proprietary one. It is to separate what you want on day one from what you may request later, define the permitted scope clearly, and say which controls would have to be reviewed before expansion.'' — Eraj Alisherov, The Patriot
The End
''I come from a place where a handshake means something. In finance, however, a handshake is only the beginning. The difficult part comes afterward, when the person across the table must defend that handshake to colleagues who were not in the room. They will not approve a relationship because you were confident, charming, or relentless. They need a proposal that remains consistent when the conversation leaves the meeting and enters a risk committee.''
— Eraj Alisherov, The Patriot
The next time a banking discussion stalls, I would not begin by asking whether the relationship manager needs another reminder. I would begin by asking whether I have given that person a clean, defensible account of our business, our customers, and our money flows. If the answer is no, another reminder is just another email.
A financial relationship can survive a hard question. It rarely survives a question the applicant keeps answering differently. The money will move one day, through someone's account. The question is whether you have made it clear enough for that someone to say yes. According to Neo's October 2024 research, 95% of surveyed European PSPs experienced bank account closures or restrictions. Such disruptions can delay settlements, affect international payments, and threaten business continuity. The same study found that 71% of surveyed PSPs faced these restrictions with little transparency or explanation. Without clear feedback, financial institutions struggle to determine whether the problem relates to compliance, commercial considerations, or a bank's internal risk appetite.
Banking Access Disrupted
Lack of Transparency
