Nikita Veremeev
24.12.2025 | 6 min read
Updated: 24.12.2025
Imagine: 70% of corporate clients at European banks spend 4 to 12 weeks on onboarding at the bank, while in Asia this figure reaches 60 days for complex structures — according to the Deloitte report “Global Banking Onboarding Trends 2025”. Your bank onboarding turns into an endless cycle of document requests when a business structure with multi-layered holdings or multi-jurisdictional connections triggers red flags in AML systems. Why does the same business complete digital onboarding in a week in Singapore, but stall for months in the EU? Structure determines everything: from speed to the risk of rejection. In this article I will examine how the impact of business structure on onboarding affects your time and ROI, and provide a step-by-step optimization plan. Read to the end — get checklists, tables and case studies to cut timelines in half and choose a partner like COREDO, which has already conducted hundreds of such onboardings.
Stages of bank onboarding for legal entities
Bank onboarding is a comprehensive process through which banks assess corporate clients and ensure compliance with strict regulatory requirements. It includes key stages and assessment criteria, guaranteeing the safety and efficiency of the partnership. Below we will examine them in detail: from KYC to technical integration.
Onboarding stages in a bank
Bank onboarding begins with KYC for corporate clients: collecting directors’ passports, articles of association, and shareholder registers. Next comes AML compliance for legal entities — analysis of ownership chains and UBOs. Economic verification checks the source of funds, and the final stage is technical integration via API. COREDO’s practice shows: for simple Pte Ltds in Singapore, where ACRA issues a certificate in 15 minutes–3 days, the entire cycle fits into 7–10 days.
How banks assess the risks of a company’s structure
Banks use scoring: a jurisdiction like Singapore (low risk) speeds up the process, while offshore jurisdictions can extend it to 90 days. The impact of corporate structure on onboarding appears in the scrutiny of connections; complex holdings require additional documents. PwC’s report “KYC Risk Assessment 2025” emphasizes: compliance risks increase by 40% with multi-level ownership.
What slows down onboarding in a company?
Elements of business structure, such as multi-level holding chains and hidden beneficiaries, often slow down or complicate onboarding, creating barriers to verifying and integrating new employees or partners. In large companies these factors lead to tangled roles, unclear areas of responsibility and delays in access to information, which reduces the efficiency of the process. In real cases, optimizing such structures sped up onboarding by 20–30%, increasing engagement and reducing turnover.
Multi-level holding chains and beneficial owners
Multi-level holding structures are one of the most frequent causes of prolonged onboarding, especially in banking and corporate environments. The more ownership levels and intermediary companies there are, the harder it is for a bank or partner to reconstruct the true picture of control and responsibility. UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner) verification in such cases turns into a multi-stage audit: not only the formal structure is required but also supporting documents for each level of the chain, including trusts, nominee directors and shareholders.
In practice this lengthens the onboarding cycle by 3–6 weeks, and sometimes longer if some documents are located in different jurisdictions or drawn up according to incompatible standards. In the EU the situation is complicated by AML and GDPR requirements, where insufficient transparency automatically increases the client’s risk profile. In one COREDO case, structure optimization — reducing holding levels and directly disclosing beneficiaries — made it possible to cut onboarding from 45 to 14 days and remove additional compliance flags from the bank.
Multijurisdictionality: EU vs Asia vs Offshore
Multijurisdictional onboarding almost always requires more time and resources, but its complexity largely depends on the countries chosen. For example, companies in the EU face stricter requirements for economic presence, sources of funds and tax transparency. This makes onboarding more predictable but slower — especially for structures with international operations.
In Asia the situation is often different. Forms like Pte Ltd in Singapore are onboarded faster thanks to digital registries (ACRA, BizFile+), minimal paid-up capital and clear corporate logic. However, even here multijurisdictionality can work against a business if the structure includes offshore elements or there is a mismatch between actual activity and the declared jurisdiction. In practice the right choice of registration country and legal form can cut onboarding times by 1.5–2x without losing compliance quality.
Multitenancy and outsourcing of layers
The multitenancy model (multitenancy) and deep outsourcing of operational functions create additional complexities during onboarding, especially for fintech and SaaS platforms. Banks and payment providers increasingly require verification not only of the legal entity but also of all categories of system users: administrators, operators, partners and sometimes even the platform’s customers.
Each additional access level increases risks in terms of AML, data protection and operational security. As a result, the onboarding process lengthens by 20–30% because a detailed description of roles, access rights and control mechanisms is required. According to the McKinsey Fintech Onboarding 2025 report, companies that formalize the user architecture and outsourcing contractors in advance complete onboarding noticeably faster and with fewer additional requests from banks.
Mismatch of sole proprietorships, LLCs and partnerships with bank requirements
The choice of legal form directly affects the speed and complexity of onboarding. Sole proprietorships (individual entrepreneurs) generally undergo checks faster — 3–5 business days — due to a simple structure, a single beneficiary and a minimal document package. However, this form is not always suitable for a scalable business or international operations.
LLCs and partnerships require deeper checks: shareholders, share distribution, corporate decisions, signatures and liabilities of the parties. This increases onboarding time to 2–4 weeks and raises the likelihood of additional questions from the bank. In international practice, forms like Pte Ltd or single-member LLC are often considered optimal compromises: they maintain transparency for compliance while not overburdening the process with excessive corporate complexity.
How Business Structure Affects AML/KYC
Business structure directly affects AML/KYC checks, determining the complexity of risk identification, transaction transparency and compliance with regulatory requirements. The more complex the corporate structure, the deeper the analysis of ownership chains and UBOs needed to avoid fines and account freezes. In real cases, transparent schemes speed up approval by 30–50%, laying the groundwork for a detailed examination of key aspects.
Transparency of Ownership Chains and UBO
Transparency of ownership chains is a key factor for AML/KYC, since it is through them that the bank or regulator determines the actual control over the business. The focus of checks is always the UBO (Ultimate Beneficial Owner): the natural persons who directly or indirectly control the company. The more levels of ownership, nominees and intermediate structures, the higher the risk profile and the deeper the required analysis.
In the EU corporate verification almost always includes requests to official registers, shareholder registers, as well as affidavits on ultimate beneficiaries. For holding structures, banks additionally require proof of factual control: management agreements, voting agreements, trust deeds. In practice the absence of a clearly documented ownership chain leads not just to delays, but to repeated rounds of KYC and temporary freezing of onboarding until the uncertainty is resolved.
Sources of Funds and the Business’s Economic Rationale
Verification of sources of funds (SOF) and sources of wealth (SOW) is one of the most sensitive stages of AML. Bank onboarding for a business requires not declarations but verifiable logic: where the money comes from, how revenue is generated and whether it corresponds to the declared business model. Contracts with clients, financial statements, tax returns and audit opinions become the basic set of evidence.
Special attention is paid to the economic rationale of operations: whether turnover corresponds to the scale of the team, infrastructure and market presence. If the business structure does not explain financial flows, the bank raises the risk rating and requests additional checks. In practice, pre-prepared SOF/SOW memorandums that link the company’s structure to its revenues can significantly speed up onboarding and reduce the likelihood of refusal or account restrictions.
Counterparties, Multitenancy, Trusted Persons
AML/KYC has long moved beyond checking a single company — today the entire ecosystem around the business is analyzed. Banks assess counterparties, partners, trusted persons and service providers, especially if they have access to accounts, data or transactions. The presence of agents, nominee directors or authorized managers automatically increases scrutiny and requires additional justification of their role.
Multitenancy (multitenancy) in onboarding increases risks even more: if a platform serves multiple clients or tenants, the bank must understand how accesses, responsibility and financial flows are separated. The absence of a clear control model turns the business into a potential AML risk. As a result, companies that pre-formalize a list of counterparties, roles of trusted persons and access architecture go through onboarding faster and with fewer compliance questions.
Comparison of onboarding by structure (table)
| Structure type | Average onboarding time | Risk of additional requests | Bank requirements | SOF evidence | Simplification recommendations |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sole Proprietor (IE) | 3–7 days | Low | Passport, address | Personal income | Use for startups |
| LLC (Pte Ltd) | 10–21 days | Medium | Articles of association, shareholders | Audit, contracts | Centralize UBO |
| Holding (single level) | 21–45 days | High | Ownership structure | Group audit | Dissolve SPV |
| Multi-layer holding | 45–90 days | Critical | Full UBO chain | Detailed SOF | Restructure to EU/Asia |
| Branch of a foreign company | 30–60 days | High | Parent company documents | Corporate guarantees | Local registration |
Types of business structures for banks and onboarding — Sole Proprietor vs LLC — shown in comparison: simplicity speeds up onboarding by 70%.
Optimizing business structure for onboarding
To speed up onboarding, you should start by optimizing the business structure and how roles, processes and documents are embedded in it. In step-by-step recommendations for optimizing the business structure to accelerate onboarding, the first logical step is to conduct an honest audit: understand what already works, where there are gaps and which artifacts (regulations, organizational chart, knowledge bases) need to be updated or created from scratch.
Structure and documentation audit – what to check
An audit is not a formal check of a folder of documents, but a diagnosis of how the business looks from the bank’s or compliance officer’s perspective. First of all, the correctness of the UBO is checked: whether the data in the articles of association, registers, powers of attorney and actual management match. Even small discrepancies — different role formulations, outdated addresses, old directors — automatically slow down onboarding.
The second block is corporate documents: articles of association, shareholder agreements, powers of attorney, board resolutions. They should not only exist, but also logically explain who is responsible for what. In COREDO’s practice, the audit is always supplemented with checklists for local registries (for example, ACRA in Singapore) to preemptively close questions from the bank and avoid going through KYC in several iterations.
Options for restructuring the ownership chain
The ownership chain directly affects the speed of onboarding: each additional level means new documents, questions and checks. In practice, banks react negatively to “dormant” SPVs that do not conduct operational activities but are present in the structure. Their liquidation or consolidation often yields an immediate effect — lowering the risk score and shortening review times.
Centralizing the UBO is one of the most effective steps: when control and economic interest are concentrated in a clear point, compliance can more easily make a decision. In some cases, moving the parent company to a jurisdiction with transparent registries (for example, Singapore) reduced the number of requests from banks and removed the need for additional legal opinions, which accelerated onboarding by weeks.
Preparing the package of documents and memoranda
Even a perfectly arranged structure will not speed up onboarding without properly packaged documents. Banks evaluate not only the facts but also how clearly they are presented. Memorandums with a transactional profile should describe: types of transactions, volumes, currencies, geography and the roles of the parties — without vague formulations.
Special attention should be paid to notifications about verification and expected changes in the business. If the bank learns about them after the fact, this almost always leads to a recheck. A pre-prepared document package allows you to complete onboarding in a single cycle rather than returning to it after each compliance request.
Digital verification and integrations: e-KYC, API
Onboarding digitization is one of the most underrated accelerators. Using e-KYC, automated checks and white-label solutions for B2B reduces manual workload and the number of data errors. In practice, this cuts verification time by up to 50%, especially for companies with distributed teams.
Integrating KYC processes with CRM and internal knowledge bases allows data to be stored and updated centrally. As a result, during repeat onboarding or a change of bank, the business does not start the process from scratch but uses already verified and up-to-date data, which significantly reduces friction.
Strategy for multi-jurisdictional onboarding
Multi-jurisdictional onboarding requires a strategy, not reactive measures. For European banks, it’s important to account in advance for requirements regarding apostille, document translation and proof of economic presence. If these steps are not built into the plan, the process stretches out for months.
In Asia, the emphasis is different: the form of the company and local management become key factors. A Pte Ltd with a resident director and a transparent structure is often perceived by banks as a low-risk model. A competent choice of jurisdiction and onboarding sequence allows you to distribute the load and avoid situations where a refusal in one country blocks the entire group.
Banking tools for onboarding
Technical and operational tools of banks and fintech that affect the onboarding process determine how quickly, safely and painlessly a client will go through all stages of verification and registration. How risk-scoring systems are configured and how big data and AI are used to automate assessments directly affects conversion, the share of refusals and the overall user experience in onboarding.
- Risk-scoring systems and AI for automating assessments Big data for onboarding personalization and AI for automating corporate onboarding flag complex structures. Personalized business onboarding increases success.
- Multitenancy and white-label onboarding for B2B Multitenancy in onboarding simplifies things for distributors but requires additional checks.
Common reasons for refusals and how to avoid them
Common reasons for refusal and how to avoid them (with case studies) are directly related to how transparently you disclose the UBO, how closely your actual activities match the declared ones, and how your transactions appear to the bank’s compliance team. In the sections below we will examine typical refusal scenarios, review real cases and show how to set up processes in advance to avoid refusals.
Typical reasons for refusal: non-transparent UBO and suspicious transactions
Risks of refusal in onboarding due to a complex business structure, 35% of cases. Countermeasure: explanatory letters. COREDO case: an Asian holding was accepted after SOF.
Cases and templates (appendices)
Below are practical cases and working templates used to speed up onboarding and reduce compliance risks in real projects.
Case 1. Foreign holding in a European bank
Task: pass bank onboarding for a complex holding structure in the EU without repeated KYC rounds. Approach: structure audit → simplification of the ownership chain → preparation of an SOF memorandum. Result: onboarding time reduced from 60 to 18 days, risk assessment lowered, account opened without restrictions.
Case 2. SMB with a multi-tenant platform in a fintech bank
Task: onboarding a platform with multiple tenants and distributed access. Approach: structuring the operating company as a Pte Ltd, formalizing user roles, integrating KYC via API. Result: successful onboarding in 12 days without additional compliance requests.
Source of Funds (SOF) memorandum template
Source of Funds Memorandum
1. Business description
Brief description of activities, markets and the operating model.
2. Sources of funds
Contracts, financial statements, audits, tax returns.
3. Ownership structure
Group diagram and description of the UBO's role.
UBO signature: ____________________
Date: ___________________________
Key takeaways and a checklist for executives/marketers/legal counsel
- Business structure is the main factor in onboarding speed. Jurisdiction, company type and holding depth affect timelines more than the bank or fintech itself. A simple structure can shorten onboarding time by 2–3 times.
- Multi-level holdings = increased AML risk. Each additional layer of ownership automatically increases the number of KYC requests, the risk of rejection and the review time. ‘Dormant’ SPVs almost always work against you.
- A transparent UBO and a logical SOF solve up to 50% of problems. Banks evaluate not only documents but the coherence of the story: who owns it, why the structure exists and how the money is made.
- Multi-jurisdictional setups must be designed, not ‘patched’. The EU, Asia and offshore jurisdictions require different approaches. A wrong onboarding sequence can block the entire group of companies.
- Legal form is a strategic decision, not a formality. Pte Ltd and single-member LLCs often provide the best balance between speed, transparency and scalability.
- Digital onboarding and e-KYC are a real accelerator, not a trend. Integrating APIs, CRM and KYC systems reduces verification times by up to 50% and reduces human error.
- Onboarding is an ROI issue, not ‘legal routine’. Every week of delay means missed deals, partners and cash flow. Restructuring almost always pays off.
- Preparation matters more than the choice of bank. Companies that come in with audits, memorandums and a clear structure complete onboarding in one cycle — without repeated checks.
If you’re planning onboarding, scaling or changing banks — start with a structure audit, not with submitting an application. Teams like COREDO do this systematically: they identify risks in advance and cut timelines not by percentages, but by weeks.