Video verification and "additional review": what the exchange actually checks
A "your account requires additional review" letter or a video-call invitation is neither a verdict nor a formality. It is the manual stage of review, where a human — not an engine — makes the decision. Here is what they actually check, what they ask, and why the biggest mistake is showing up with a rehearsed story.
Why your case went to manual review
Automated scoring closes most reviews without your involvement. A case reaches the manual stage when the engine cannot decide on its own: a risk score in the grey zone, atypical account behaviour, a counterparty complaint, a retroactive re-scoring of old transactions. A video call is the most expensive tool the exchange has, so it is never requested "just in case" — there is a specific question compliance wants to examine with human eyes.
What they actually verify on video
That you control the account
The primary goal. Exchanges hunt for sold, rented and mule-operated accounts: one person passed KYC, another trades. Hence the requests to show your document, turn your head, answer spontaneous questions.
That you understand your own operations
A person who actually traded answers effortlessly where a deposit came from and why a withdrawal was made. A person who "lent the account to a friend" drowns on the second question — it is visible immediately.
That your story matches the graph
The operator sees your transaction profile. "I trade a little for myself" against a six-figure monthly turnover is a contradiction that will be recorded.
How to prepare: documents and facts, not a script
- Re-read your own operation history for recent months: large deposits, withdrawals, P2P turnover. You should recognise your transactions without prompts.
- Keep the documents you have already submitted at hand: KYC data, previous compliance responses. Contradicting your earlier version is the worst thing that can happen.
- If your source of funds is salary, business or a property sale — have short confirmations ready (contract, bank statement). How to structure them — our Source of Funds breakdown.
- Technical hygiene: stable internet, neutral background, the physical document (not a phone photo of it).
- Don't read answers from a sheet. Monotone reading is a marker of a prepared script — it works against you.
If the account genuinely isn't quite yours
The honest section. If you traded "for a friend", shared the account with a partner, or bought a verified profile — video verification will most likely expose it. Inventing a story means adding deception of a review to the AML question, after which an unlock becomes nearly unreachable. In such cases the honest strategy is to disclose the actual situation in writing and build the position around the real beneficiary of the funds. A hard route — but the only one that works.
After the call: what next
Decisions are rarely announced on the spot — the case goes to internal sign-off. Don't bombard support: one status request per 5–7 business days is enough. If a written document request arrives after the video — that is normal procedure; answer by the rules of responding to compliance (there is an open template). If you were rejected — don't "retake" with a new story: dig into the reason, evidence persuades better than acting.
Bottom line
Video verification is not an exam in having a perfect biography — it checks that you are you, and that your story matches your graph. Honest gaps ("I don't recall the exact date, I can confirm in writing") are received normally; a rehearsed script is not. If your case is more complex than "confirm identity" — assess it here or request a free assessment.