You are adding up six months of credits on a borrower’s statement, and the total looks healthy. Then you notice a large transfer out to a supplier on the 28th and an almost identical amount coming back from the same supplier two days later. The same pair appears again the following month.
Before that total goes into the credit memo, you need to know what it really contains. When funds appear to leave and return, how do you check whether turnover is inflated?
Why account credits are not revenue
A statement records movements in an account. A receipt may be a customer payment, borrowing, an owner’s contribution or a transfer from another account, and each has different implications for credit analysis. Gross credits should not be called turnover until you know what they represent.
IAS 7 distinguishes operating, investing and financing activities. That is why account totals cannot substitute for a classified statement of cash flows, and any classification applied to statement data should show the basis for each transaction it moves. If the statements were turned into data by extraction software, check the extracted data before analysing it.
What counts as a possible round trip?
In this article, a possible round trip means funds that appear to go out to a counterparty and come back from that same counterparty. It is a review pattern, not a legal finding, and it is not proof that no economic activity took place: refunds, cancelled purchases, advances and other legitimate arrangements also produce returning funds.
The starting question is therefore what the payments were for and whether records support the explanation. Check each case in this order:
- Note the outgoing and incoming entries, with dates and amounts.
- Identify the parties on both sides.
- Record the period reviewed.
- Ask for the documents that would confirm the explanation, and list what is still missing.
Similar amounts alone do not show that two transactions belong together.
Example: CV Mitra Pangan Lestari, a fictitious food distributor, sends IDR 750.000.000 to a supplier on 28 March and receives IDR 745.000.000 back from the same supplier on 30 March. The borrower explains it as a cancelled order less a fee. A cancellation notice and a matching credit note support that explanation; the returning IDR 745.000.000 is then a refund, and it does not belong in operating turnover.
Large movements around period end
Timing, rather than the counterparty, can be what stands out. Large receipts followed by outgoing payments around a reporting date may be consistent with window dressing, but they can also reflect ordinary settlement or treasury activity.
Review the surrounding period rather than the closing balance alone. Then ask for invoices, agreements, refund records or other evidence that fits the explanation given.
How should transfers between the borrower’s own accounts be treated?
Moving funds between accounts held by the same borrower is normal treasury activity. The problem appears when several accounts are reviewed together: an internal receipt counted as a new external receipt overstates the apparent level of activity, with no wrongdoing involved.
Confirm account ownership and find the corresponding entry before treating a movement as internal, because similar dates and amounts are not enough. If only one side is available, record that limitation. For transfers across currencies, keep each currency’s amounts separate instead of adding them as one figure.
Adjusting the figures
Once movements are investigated, separate operating receipts from financing, internal transfers and other items. Each classification needs a documented basis, and uncertain items stay visible instead of disappearing from the total.
Receipts from affiliates need the same care. An affiliate may be a genuine customer, so the relationship is a reason to check the terms and evidence; how to analyse related-party transactions covers that review.
An adjusted bank-statement summary remains an analytical estimate. It does not automatically become the numerator of a debt service coverage ratio (DSCR), which requires a defined cash-flow basis, a consistent period and the relevant debt-service obligations. How coverage is measured follows the institution’s own credit policy.
When does a finding go beyond credit review?
Some patterns raise questions the credit team should not answer alone. PPATK’s reporting guidance summarises the criteria for suspicious-transaction reporting under Law No. 8 of 2010 on the Prevention and Eradication of Money Laundering. A pattern found in credit analysis does not automatically meet those criteria, so follow the institution’s escalation procedures and the applicable legal requirements.
Checklist before trusting turnover from a statement
- Each material receipt has a known nature: customer payment, financing, owner contribution or transfer.
- Returning funds and period-end movements are checked against supporting records, not amounts alone.
- Own-account transfers are matched on both sides and removed from external receipts; currencies stay separate.
- Every adjustment has a documented reason, and uncertain items remain visible.
- A pattern leads to questions and, where needed, escalation; it is not a conclusion of fraud.
Sxored keeps loan disbursements, transfers between the borrower’s own accounts and related-party transactions out of the adjusted cash flow by default, and the analyst can bring any transaction back in, flag it and record the reason. The borrower’s reported obligations sit in another document: see how to read a SLIK OJK iDeb report.
