Bank transfers (“virements”) are often presented as the simplest way to pay in France. In practice, they are legally subtle. A transfer can be ordered with almost no formalities, can sometimes be revoked, and does not create the same creditor protections as a cheque. For creditors and debt collection professionals, transfers offer speed and traceability—but they also have a major weakness: the debtor remains in control until the funds are actually credited to the beneficiary’s bank.
This article provides a structured overview of the French legal rules governing bank transfers, focusing on: the mechanism of the transfer order, the legally relevant payment date, the banker’s key obligations (including non-interference and banking secrecy), fraud and unauthorised transfer regimes, execution deadlines and value dates, and the consequences of debtor insolvency or account seizure.
1. How a bank transfer works in France
1.1 The transfer order: no legal formalism is required
Banks often offer standard written transfer forms, but a transfer order can also be given by letter or fax, electronically, or even by telephone. There is no mandatory legal formalism for a transfer order.
That practical flexibility matters in day-to-day business, but it also means the parties must be disciplined about proof and security, especially when the amounts are significant.
1.2 Transfers are sometimes legally mandatory
Certain payments must be made by transfer (or by other specific non-cash means), depending on the applicable rules.
A clear example concerns notarial flows: payments made or received by a notary on behalf of the parties to an authentic deed that gives rise to land registration publicity must be made by transfer when they exceed €3,000.
More generally, the law also requires the use of transfer, cheque, or credit card for certain payments where cash is prohibited.
1.3 Instant transfers: speed, availability, and fee parity in the euro area
Instant transfers (“virements instantanés”) allow euro funds to be transferred in under 10 seconds, 24/7, including weekends and holidays. A standard transfer typically takes 24 to 48 hours on average.
A European regulation has supported the roll-out of instant transfers. In the euro area, since 9 January 2025, an instant transfer must not cost more than a standard transfer, which in practice should often make instant transfers free. Banks must also, from that same date, provide the service of receiving euro instant transfers. Then, no later than 9 October 2025, they must provide the service of sending euro instant transfers. For electronic money institutions, the timeline is later, with the dual obligation shifted to 9 April 2027, and additional deadlines are предусмотр for providers outside the euro area.
1.4 If a bank and client agree on a specific security process, it must be respected
Transfers are often subject to agreed security procedures. When a bank and its client have agreed that transfers will be made using a personalised security device (for example, login and access code) and that a signed confirmation fax will also be sent, the bank may incur liability if it executes a transfer without having received the signed confirmation fax.
2. The structural weakness of a transfer: the debtor’s “goodwill” remains decisive
A bank transfer has a fundamental disadvantage for the creditor: it leaves the initiative to the debtor. If the transfer order is not given, nothing is paid, and the supplier does not obtain a negotiable payment instrument (unlike a cheque or bill of exchange) that could strengthen enforcement.
As a result, if payment is not made, the creditor generally relies only on the commercial documents signed by the client—purchase order, delivery note, and similar documentation—to support recovery steps.
A further complication is that the debtor may change their mind. The debtor can revoke the transfer order freely until the amount is credited to the beneficiary bank’s account.
A practical illustration of this vulnerability appears in a share transfer context: a buyer committed to pay by bank transfer and later claimed partial payment based on a transfer order, but the seller had in reality been deceived—he signed a receipt relying on the transfer order presentation even though the funds were never actually credited.
3. The legally relevant payment date for a transfer
3.1 When is payment legally considered made?
A key principle applies: a transfer constitutes payment upon receipt of funds by the bank holding them for the beneficiary.
This date is crucial whenever timing becomes contentious—especially when a transfer competes with insolvency proceedings or with a seizure affecting the debtor’s account.
3.2 Example: “resolutory clause” timing and the payment date
In a scenario involving a contractual resolutory clause triggered if payment is not made within a set period, the debtor ordered the transfer before the deadline, the bank executed it before the deadline, but the creditor’s account was credited after the deadline. The relevant payment date was not the day the creditor saw the money on their account, but the day the funds were credited to the bank of the creditor—leading to the conclusion that payment occurred in time.
3.3 Wrongful or mistaken transfers: protective measures and limits
If a recipient bank is warned that a transfer it may receive is wrongful, the recipient bank must take all useful steps so that, if the funds are transferred, they are not credited to its client’s account.
At the same time, the recipient bank cannot simply order restitution without the recipient’s consent, even if the transfer is wrongful and even if the payer has been reimbursed by their own bank.
When a mistaken transfer is made in a foreign currency (example given in dollars), restitution can be ordered with conversion into euros, with the conversion calculated at the date of the wrongful payment.
4. The banker’s obligations in transfer operations
4.1 Non-interference and banking secrecy
A bank is not required to concern itself with the underlying reason for a transfer requested by its client. The banker must not interfere in clients’ affairs.
This also connects to banking secrecy. Where someone believes they used the wrong beneficiary name and asks the beneficiary’s bank to provide identifying details (name, registered office, registration), the bank may refuse. Information enabling identification of the beneficiary client is covered by professional secrecy and cannot be communicated to a third party without the client’s consent.
4.2 Detecting and addressing “false” orders and unauthorised payments
The core reimbursement rule (euro transfers)
Following the European directive on payment services and its transposition into French law, when a payment operation is unauthorised, the payer’s bank must reimburse the amount.
To obtain reimbursement, the account holder must report the unauthorised transfer within 13 months from the debit date. A shorter period may be provided by the bank if the account holder is not a natural person acting for non-professional purposes.
A strict limitation applies: the account holder cannot rely on an alternative legal basis to bypass this regime. If the 13-month deadline has passed, the account holder cannot pursue the bank under ordinary contractual liability rules for euro transfers.
The non-euro exception (contractual liability framework)
Where the contested transfer is made in a currency other than the euro, the bank’s liability is assessed under ordinary contractual liability. In that framework, the banker is not liable if it ensured that:
-
the order came from the account holder or their representative,
-
the order showed no apparent anomaly (formal or “intellectual”),
-
and the operation was not manifestly irregular or unusual in the client’s commercial practice.
Jurisdiction point for cross-border fraud within the EU
When a French company’s account is debited due to a fraudulent transfer to a bank in another EU Member State, an action may be brought in France against both the French bank and the foreign bank insofar as the damage occurred in France.
The guarantor’s position
A guarantor of the account holder may pursue ordinary contractual liability of the bank even if the account holder did not contest the transfer within 13 months.
4.3 When the account holder’s own fault blocks reimbursement
The account holder bears all losses caused by unauthorised payment operations if the losses result from the account holder’s own fraudulent conduct, or if—intentionally or through gross negligence—the account holder failed to take reasonable measures to preserve the security of their data.
Gross negligence may be found, for example, where the account holder disseminated banking details without discernment, or where negligence enabled a fraudster to generate a false transfer order.
Several fraud patterns illustrate the allocation of responsibility:
-
In a “CEO fraud” scenario, where unusual transfer orders and circumstances suggested a possible fraud, the bank could be held liable if the orders had apparent anomalies and the bank failed to verify regularity with the company leader who alone was contractually authorised to validate them.
-
By contrast, a bank is not required to reimburse a transfer initiated by an employee who was deceived if the transfer order had no apparent anomalies.
-
In a “fake bank advisor” scenario, the client was tricked by a caller displaying the genuine advisor’s phone number and was induced to modify beneficiary lists using confidential codes. The client succeeded because gross negligence was not demonstrated given the reassuring display of the advisor’s number.
-
In a malware email scenario, judges initially split fault between the company (gross negligence) and the bank (lack of vigilance), ordering partial reimbursement. That approach was censured: once gross negligence by the account holder is established as enabling the fraud, reimbursement cannot be ordered—even partially.
-
Where an IBAN was substituted by a fraudster during email exchanges, the bank is not responsible when the client provides a wrong IBAN. Even if the IBAN contained apparent anomalies, the framework does not provide for a sharing of responsibility on that basis.
5. Executing the transfer order without delay: timing rules and value dates
5.1 Duty to execute when the account is sufficiently funded
If the account is funded, the banker must execute the transfer order without delay. An abnormal delay causing specific loss can trigger damages.
5.2 Legal execution timeline: one business day (with a paper exception)
The amount of a transfer order must be credited to the beneficiary bank’s account no later than the end of the first business day following receipt of the order. For orders given on paper, the period can be extended by one additional business day.
If the order is received on a non-business day for the bank, it is treated as received on the next business day.
5.3 “Virement commercial” (VCOM)
A “virement commercial” (VCOM) is a dematerialised payment instrument. After invoices are accepted, the company builds a file of transfer orders enriched with commercial information and sends it to the bank. After checking compliance, the bank sends a payment notice to each supplier and may, under certain conditions, offer early payment.
5.4 Value dates: no adverse dating beyond defined rules
For banking payments other than cheques, value dates are framed as follows:
-
the value date for a credit to the beneficiary’s account cannot be later than the business day on which the amount is credited to the beneficiary bank’s account;
-
the value date for the payer’s debit cannot be earlier than the day the amount is debited from the payer’s account.
5.5 Technical incidents and force majeure in strict payment schedules
A bank’s IT deficiency can become legally decisive. Where a court-ordered payment schedule was strict—non-payment of an instalment would trigger automatic termination—and a technical incident in the payer’s bank prevented execution on time, courts accepted that the incident could constitute force majeure, allowing the payer to avoid the resolutory clause consequences.
Conversely, a bank’s failure to execute a transfer order aimed at abusively financing a debtor in cessation of payments did not lead to damages because the alleged loss was not considered legitimate.
6. Debtor insolvency and bank transfers
6.1 The “transfer without funds” concept does not exist
There is no equivalent to a “cheque without provision” mechanism for transfers. If the account is not sufficiently funded, the creditor is simply not paid. The creditor does not benefit from a dedicated recovery procedure comparable to the certificate and enforcement pathway available for unpaid cheques. There is also no special sanction such as a cheque-book ban or penalties triggered by the unpaid transfer itself.
6.2 Competing transfer orders: no priority based on “first given”
If the debtor gives two transfer orders but the account cannot cover both, the first order does not automatically have priority over the second. The reason is structural: unlike a cheque, a transfer order does not transfer ownership of the funds to the beneficiary at the time it is given. The bank must therefore ask the debtor which order to execute.
6.3 Transfer versus cheque on the same day: cheque paid first if funds are insufficient
When a cheque and a transfer are presented on the same day and funds are insufficient to cover both, the cheque is paid first, even if the cheque was issued after the transfer order. The rationale remains the difference in ownership: the cheque beneficiary becomes owner of the provision upon issuance of the cheque, whereas the transfer beneficiary becomes owner only when the funds are actually transferred to their account.
6.4 The bank’s right to refuse execution where the account is debit
Even if a debtor and a creditor agree to reverse an erroneous transfer, the debtor’s bank may refuse to execute the reversal transfer if the debtor’s account is debit and not authorised for sufficient overdraft. A bank is obliged to execute a transfer order only if, at the date of the order, the account is credit or benefits from an overdraft authorisation.
Similarly, unless otherwise agreed, a bank is obliged to execute a transfer order only if sufficient and available funds exist. The bank is not required to execute the order partially “up to available funds” if execution would exceed authorised overdraft; it is free not to let the deficit deepen beyond what is authorised.
6.5 Safeguard, restructuring, liquidation: when insolvency blocks the transfer
Until the amount is debited from the debtor’s account, the sum remains the debtor’s property and does not belong to the creditor.
Therefore, if safeguard proceedings, restructuring, or liquidation are opened before the debit entry, the creditor will not receive the transfer amount and must, like other creditors, declare the claim in the insolvency proceedings.
Conversely, if the transfer is debited before the day the court pronounces restructuring, the amount belongs to the beneficiary.
A further distinction is relevant for the opposability of payment to insolvency proceedings: the date on which the bank received the transfer order is used to determine whether a payment by bank transfer is opposable to the insolvency procedure. For compensation between a debt owed by the debtor and a transfer credited to the debtor’s account, the relevant date is the effective receipt of funds on the debtor’s account.
A compensation example illustrates the point: a subsidy transfer reached the interbank compensation system on one day, but was posted to the association’s overdrafted current account the next day—the same day restructuring proceedings were opened. The bank could not claim compensation as of the earlier date; compensation could only have occurred when the transfer was posted, and restructuring prevented the bank from being paid ahead of other creditors.
7. Seizure of the debtor’s bank account and its effect on transfers
If sums in the debtor’s bank account are unavailable due to a seizure, the transfer order is not void. The bank’s execution is suspended until the corresponding amount becomes available.
If the account is seized after the transfer order date but before execution, the same logic applies: the beneficiary must wait for the end of the seizure to see the account credited.
Two practical conditions remain decisive:
-
the debtor must not revoke the transfer order in the meantime;
-
and there must still be sufficient funds on the account after the seizure.
Conclusion
Bank transfers in France are flexible, fast—especially with instant transfers—and legally structured, but they are not “creditor-friendly” by default. The creditor’s position is strongest only once the funds are effectively credited under the relevant legal timing rules. Until then, the debtor can sometimes revoke the order, insolvency can block the operation, and seizures can suspend execution.
For recovery professionals, the transfer is therefore both a useful traceable payment route and a mechanism that requires careful evidence management: clear commercial documentation, rigorous monitoring of credit dates, and rapid reaction to fraud patterns and insolvency signals.
