In principle, yes. Belgian banks accept crypto-related deposits, but they are subject to strict anti-money laundering and KYC obligations. Banks analyse transactions using algorithms that take into account your personal profile, your normal income and spending patterns, and the history of your account. Transactions that clearly deviate from this are automatically flagged and give rise to additional questions regarding the origin and tax treatment of the funds.

There is no legal limit on crypto deposits. In practice, however, banks apply risk thresholds based on profile analysis. Large amounts, or amounts that do not correspond to what is considered normal for your profile, are more likely to trigger checks. It is not a matter of fixed limits, but rather an assessment based on risk management and pattern recognition.

Artificially splitting deposits or spreading amounts across different banks with the intention of avoiding controls is generally seen by banks as an additional risk signal. In practice, such fragmented deposits are often still detected by monitoring systems and flagged over time. This typically results in further questions and enhanced scrutiny. Banks are aware that this technique is used to make supervision more difficult, and in the absence of a convincing and transparent explanation, it may in itself be sufficient grounds for terminating the banking relationship.

Yes. In practice, banks make a clear distinction depending on the origin of the deposit. Especially for larger amounts or when liquidating an entire or substantial crypto portfolio, banks often prefer deposits originating from a platform holding a MiCA licence. We have repeatedly experienced in practice that banks were willing to accept a crypto deposit on the condition that the liquidation effectively took place through a MiCA-licensed platform. Many banks specifically favour Kraken, due to its extensive KYC procedures and the clear compliance and reporting standards it applies. Deposits made directly on-chain from a non-custodial wallet are not excluded, but they more frequently trigger additional questions and stricter evidentiary requirements from banks.

This is not legally required, but it is strongly recommended. We advise this very firmly for larger amounts, in particular where the amount to be deposited is significantly higher than the original investment, which in practice is a useful rule of thumb.

By communicating in advance about a planned crypto deposit and explaining the origin of the funds, the bank can carry out its checks beforehand without being confronted with strict time pressure. Once the funds have actually been credited to an account, banks must obtain certainty as quickly as possible regarding their lawful nature. Submitting the file in advance is therefore not only advisable, but also courteous towards the bank, as it creates room for dialogue, further explanation, and the provision of additional information if necessary.

When the bank asks additional questions and the answers or documentation provided are deemed insufficient, it will generally file a report with the Belgian Financial Intelligence Processing Unit, as required under anti-money laundering legislation.

Such a report may have several consequences. In exceptional cases, it may lead to further investigation by law enforcement or the public prosecutor, although in practice this is rare and usually limited to very large amounts or clear anomalies. Much more frequently, a report results in inquiries by the tax authorities, who will examine the origin and tax treatment of the funds more closely. In addition, the bank may decide to terminate the banking relationship, requiring the client to seek another bank, which will in turn usually also ask questions about the origin of the assets. Finally, the bank may temporarily restrict certain transactions or even limit or block the account while the review is ongoing, although such blocking is not common in practice and is generally temporary.

If the funds have not yet actually been credited to a bank account, the likelihood of a report is lower. In that case, there is still room to reassess the file and, if necessary, seek another banking relationship before an effective deposit takes place.

In practice, the deposit itself is rarely blocked. What more often occurs is that outgoing transactions are temporarily restricted or that the account is temporarily frozen while the review is ongoing. In this way, the bank creates time to gather additional information and comply with its legal obligations.

There is no fixed timeframe. When the deposit fits within the normal profile and the documentation is clear, processing is generally smooth. If additional checks are required, it may take several days or longer, depending on the complexity of the case and the level of cooperation.

A bank cannot in principle close an account arbitrarily, but it may decide to terminate the banking relationship when it believes it can no longer comply with its legal obligations, for example due to insufficient transparency regarding the origin of funds or an increased risk profile. Provided this is done in accordance with the applicable service agreement, a bank must generally have a concrete and defensible reason to end the relationship.

This does not mean, however, that the existence of such a reason creates any right to maintain the existing banking relationship. All of this takes place within the framework of the contractual terms and the applicable anti-money laundering legislation. In Belgium, there is a right of access to a basic banking service, meaning that a person cannot be completely excluded from the banking system, but this does not guarantee the preservation of an existing banking relationship.

The conclusion is that a banking relationship cannot be terminated lightly or arbitrarily, but in practice the question often arises whether it is worth pursuing legal action. Initiating proceedings in order to remain with a bank that no longer wishes to continue the relationship is generally not advisable. In many cases, it is simpler and more practical to find a bank that is willing to accept the funds, provided a clear and transparent explanation of their origin is given.

Some banks and financial institutions are, in practice, more pragmatic about crypto than others, but no bank is truly “crypto-friendly” in the sense that it dispenses with checks. Even with so-called crypto-friendly banks, KYC and anti-money laundering obligations continue to apply in full. The difference mainly lies in the level of experience with crypto and the speed with which cases are handled.

Revolut is often used in practice as an intermediary step in crypto transactions and is generally more familiar with crypto than traditional banks. This does not mean, however, that Revolut will not ask questions or cannot file reports. Revolut is also subject to European anti-money laundering legislation and may restrict accounts, block transactions, or file reports where the origin of funds is insufficiently clear.

Yes. Banks increasingly verify whether crypto gains have been treated correctly for tax purposes, including whether foreign crypto accounts have been reported to the Central Contact Point and whether realized gains have been properly included in the tax return. A comprehensive and defensible tax file significantly reduces the risk of questions, reports, and restrictions.

Yes. Due to international data exchange, the CAP reporting obligation, and the use of data mining, banks and tax authorities have access to significantly more information. Crypto deposits become visible more quickly, and systematic questioning will become the norm.

It is advisable to properly document your transactions, maintain clear summary reports, and verify in advance what information your bank expects. Transparency, preparation, and a comprehensive tax file are essential to reduce the risk of account blocks, reporting obligations, and the potential loss of the banking relationship.