Anyone researching offshore private banking quickly runs into a wall of contradictory numbers. One bank claims you need USD 250,000. Another insists the minimum is USD 1 million. Others hint at eight figures, or decline to state a number at all. The result is confusion, wasted applications, and a steady stream of frustrated would-be clients who technically “meet the minimum” but still get turned away.

The problem is that most discussions of offshore private banking treat minimum deposits as a fixed price tag. In reality, they function more like a screening mechanism. To understand whether offshore private banking is realistic—and at what level—you need to understand what those minimums actually represent, how banks interpret them, and why they vary so dramatically across jurisdictions.

What “Minimum Deposit” Really Means in Offshore Private Banking

In private banking, the minimum deposit is rarely just cash sitting in an account. What banks care about is assets under management, or AUM. This includes investable assets the bank can manage, advise on, lend against, or otherwise generate revenue from. A client with USD 1 million in idle cash is often less attractive than one with USD 750,000 placed into a managed portfolio.

This distinction matters because private banks are not deposit-taking charities. Their economics are driven by fees, spreads, and long-term relationships. Cash earns very little for the bank unless it is actively deployed. As a result, many offshore private banks will quote a high “minimum deposit” publicly, then quietly accept lower amounts if the client agrees to a discretionary or advisory mandate.

This is why people who approach private banks asking for a simple current account often fail, even with substantial balances. The bank is not rejecting the money; it is rejecting the relationship profile. Private banking minimums are best understood as minimum relationship sizes, not minimum balances.

The Three Tiers of Offshore Private Banking

Entry-Level Private Banking (USD 250,000–500,000)

At the lowest end of the private banking spectrum sits what is often called entry-level private banking. This tier still exists, but it is shrinking fast. Banks operating here typically impose tighter conditions, higher fees, or mandatory investment products to justify the relationship.

Clients in this range should not expect bespoke structuring or white-glove service. The offering is closer to premium retail banking with offshore access. Relationship managers handle larger books, compliance scrutiny is strict, and flexibility is limited. For banks, this tier only works when the client’s profile is exceptionally clean and commercially simple.

True Private Banking (USD 1–5 million)

This is where private banking becomes what most people imagine it to be. At this level, banks are willing to invest time in the relationship. Clients gain access to experienced relationship managers, lending solutions, and coordination with external advisers such as trustees or tax counsel.

The minimums here are more negotiable, but expectations rise accordingly. Banks expect diversified assets, a coherent wealth story, and long-term engagement. This tier represents the sweet spot for internationally mobile entrepreneurs, expatriates, and family offices with moderate complexity.

Ultra-High-Net-Worth and Family Office Banking (USD 10 million+)

Above USD 10 million, minimum deposits largely lose their relevance. The discussion shifts from thresholds to structure. Banks focus on risk management, jurisdictional exposure, and operational complexity rather than asset size alone.

At this level, onboarding resembles a project rather than an application. Multiple entities, trusts, and investment vehicles are common, and the bank’s role is often as a coordinator rather than a simple custodian. The “minimum” is less about money and more about whether the bank wants the exposure.

Why Minimum Deposits Vary So Widely by Jurisdiction

Jurisdiction plays a decisive role in how offshore private banking minimums are applied. Switzerland, for example, still carries a reputation for exclusivity, but many Swiss private banks quietly accept lower entry points when assets are professionally managed. Their high published minimums function more as brand positioning than hard rules.

Singapore sits at the other end of the spectrum. In recent years, regulators have pushed banks toward more conservative onboarding. As a result, minimums are not only higher but more rigid, particularly for foreign clients and politically exposed individuals. Even strong applicants may face lengthy delays or declines.

Smaller jurisdictions often operate differently. In places where private banking is relationship-driven and competition is fierce, banks may accept lower balances if the client fits a desirable profile. This flexibility rarely appears on websites, but it exists in practice.

US persons face a separate set of constraints. FATCA compliance increases operational costs, so many offshore private banks either raise minimums for US clients or avoid them altogether. When minimums appear inexplicably high, compliance burden is often the real reason.

Soft Minimums, Ramp-Ups, and Negotiated Thresholds

One of the least discussed aspects of offshore private banking is that many minimums are not immediate. Banks frequently approve clients on the understanding that assets will be transferred over time. A relationship might begin with USD 500,000 and include a documented plan to reach USD 1 million within twelve months.

Introductions matter here. Clients referred by trustees, law firms, or established intermediaries often receive flexibility unavailable to cold applicants. The bank is not lowering its standards; it is relying on trusted filters upstream.

This is why online research can be misleading. Public minimums are blunt instruments. Actual onboarding decisions are nuanced, conditional, and often shaped by who is making the introduction as much as by the number on the balance sheet.

Why Some Applicants Fail Even When They Meet the Minimum

Meeting the stated minimum does not guarantee acceptance. In many cases, it barely moves the needle. Banks assess applicants on a combination of commercial and compliance factors, and asset size is only one of them.

Source of wealth is often decisive. A smaller amount derived from a straightforward business exit is usually preferable to a larger pool tied up in opaque structures or high-risk jurisdictions. Complexity increases onboarding cost, and banks price that cost into their acceptance decisions.

Profitability matters too. Clients who intend to hold cash, avoid products, and require extensive compliance handling may simply not make economic sense. Rejections in these cases are commercial decisions, not judgments on legitimacy.

Understanding this dynamic saves time. Many failed applications are not due to insufficient wealth but misaligned expectations about what private banks are willing to manage.

Is Offshore Private Banking Still Worth It?

Offshore private banking remains valuable, but only for the right profiles. It makes sense for clients who value jurisdictional diversification, professional asset management, and long-term relationships. It is less suitable for those seeking simple accounts with minimal engagement.

Minimum deposits are not barriers designed to exclude arbitrarily. They are filters that help banks allocate resources efficiently. Clients who understand this approach the process differently, frame their applications more effectively, and choose jurisdictions aligned with their profile.

Offshore private banking is not a product you buy; it is a relationship you qualify for. Understanding how minimum deposits really work is the first step toward deciding whether that relationship is worth pursuing.