You have just received the Kbis of your French company — the official extract issued by the greffe, the registry of the commercial court, which proves that your company exists. Then a second letter arrives: your French bank asks for proof that the beneficial owners have been declared, or the greffe writes that your declaration is missing or incomplete. You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, the paperwork is in French, and the clock is running. This article explains, in English and step by step, who counts as a bénéficiaire effectif (beneficial owner) when a French company is held from abroad, how to file the declaration on the French single online portal from another country, and how to correct a rejection or an incomplete file before the sanctions fall. The rules below are the ones in force in France on 22 September 2026, with the exact statutory texts and recent court decisions that apply them.

I. Who counts as a beneficial owner when your French company is owned from abroad

A. Which French companies must file and when the duty starts

Almost every company registered in France must identify its beneficial owners and keep that information accurate. Article L. 561-45-1 of the French Monetary and Financial Code (Code monétaire et financier) states that “Sont tenus d’obtenir et de conserver des informations exactes et actualisées sur leurs bénéficiaires effectifs définis à l’article L. 561-2-2” the companies and entities established on French territory in accordance with Article L. 123-11 of the Commercial Code (Article L. 561-45-1, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). In plain English: if your SAS (société par actions simplifiée, the simplified joint-stock company most foreign founders choose), your SARL (société à responsabilité limitée, the limited liability company), your SCI (société civile immobilière, the property holding company) or your French branch is registered on French territory, the duty applies to you, even if every shareholder lives abroad and even if the only shareholder is a foreign company.

Only a narrow category escapes the duty: companies whose shares are admitted to trading on a regulated market in France or in another State party to the European Economic Area agreement, or which are subject to equivalent transparency duties. For a privately held French subsidiary of an American, British, Emirati or Asian group, that exemption never applies. The French administration’s official business portal confirms that commercial companies whose registered office is located abroad but which have an establishment in France, and more generally the entities subject to registration with the RCS (registre du commerce et des sociétés, the Trade and Companies Register) and the RNE (registre national des entreprises, the National Business Register), fall within the filing duty (Déclaration des bénéficiaires effectifs, service-public.fr). If you run a French company from abroad, assume from day one that you must file.

The declaration is made at the time of the application for registration with the Trade and Companies Register, through the single body referred to in Article R. 123-1 of the Commercial Code. Article R. 561-55 of the Monetary and Financial Code provides that “Les informations relatives aux bénéficiaires effectifs mentionnées au premier alinéa de l’article L. 561-46 sont déclarées au greffe du tribunal de commerce lors de la demande d’immatriculation au registre du commerce et des sociétés présentée par la société ou l’entité immatriculée par l’intermédiaire de l’organisme unique mentionné à l’ article R. 123-1 du code de commerce” (Article R. 561-55, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). That organisme unique (single body) is the Guichet unique, the single online portal for business formalities operated by the INPI (Institut national de la propriété industrielle, the French intellectual property and business-registration office) at formalites.entreprises.gouv.fr. Since 1 January 2023 it has replaced the old network of business-formality centres. Article L. 123-33 of the Commercial Code states the principle in these terms: “toute entreprise se conforme à l’obligation de déclarer sa création, la modification de sa situation ou la cessation de ses activités” through one single file, and “Ce dossier est déposé par voie électronique auprès d’un organisme unique désigné à cet effet” (Article L. 123-33, Code de commerce, Légifrance). A foreign founder therefore never files the beneficial-owner declaration on paper at the court counter: everything passes through the Guichet unique, which forwards the file to the greffe of the registered office.

Two practical consequences follow for a founder living abroad. First, the declaration is part of the birth of the company: a file without the beneficial-owner section is incomplete, and the greffe will stop the registration or send a request for additional documents, which delays the Kbis and therefore the bank account, the VAT number and the first invoices. Second, the duty does not end at registration. Whenever a fact or an act makes it necessary to correct or complete the declared information — a sale of shares, a new shareholder agreement, a change of nationality or personal address of an owner, a restructuring of the foreign holding chain — the company must apply for a corrective entry within thirty days. Article R. 561-55 states: “La société ou l’entité immatriculée demande une inscription modificative dans les trente jours suivant tout fait ou acte rendant nécessaire la rectification ou le complément des informations déclarées” (Article R. 561-55, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). The administration charges a registry fee for each filing — around nineteen euros at registration and around thirty-five euros for a later corrective filing — and the filing itself is made online by the company’s representative (mandataire), typically its legal manager, or by a person holding a power of attorney, such as a French lawyer acting from Paris for a client abroad.

If you are setting up the whole structure now, read first our pillar guide for foreign founders, which covers the bank account, the Kbis, VAT and the first hire in one place: Setting Up a Company in France as a Foreign Founder: Bank Account, Kbis, VAT and Your First Hire. The beneficial-owner declaration is one of the blocks of that process, and this article takes over exactly where the pillar guide leaves the registration step, with the focus on identifying the right individuals behind a foreign ownership chain. If your file is already blocked — transfers held by the bank or a letter from the court — read also our companion guide for that emergency situation: Your French Company Is Blocked Over Its Beneficial Owners: RBE Filing, Bank Freeze and How a Foreign Owner Fixes It From Abroad.

B. Finding the human being behind a foreign chain: the 25 percent rule, indirect control and the fallback to the legal manager

French law looks through companies and trusts to find the flesh-and-blood person at the end of the chain. Article L. 561-2-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code gives the general definition: “Pour l’application du présent chapitre, le bénéficiaire effectif est la ou les personnes physiques : 1° Soit qui contrôlent en dernier lieu, directement ou indirectement, le client ; 2° Soit pour laquelle une opération est exécutée ou une activité exercée” (Article L. 561-2-2, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). Only a natural person — une personne physique — can be a beneficial owner. Your Delaware LLC, your English Ltd or your Dubai holding company can own 100 percent of the French SAS, but the declaration must name the individual or individuals behind it.

For a company, the regulation sets a precise threshold. Article R. 561-1 of the same Code provides that the beneficial owner is “la ou les personnes physiques qui soit détiennent, directement ou indirectement, plus de 25 % du capital ou des droits de vote de la société, soit exercent, par tout autre moyen, un pouvoir de contrôle sur la société au sens des 3° et 4° du I de l’article L. 233-3 du code de commerce” (Article R. 561-1, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). Three points matter enormously for foreign structures. First, the threshold is more than 25 percent of the capital or of the voting rights: a partner holding exactly 25 percent is not caught by the percentage test, though the control test below can still catch that person. Second, indirect holdings count: if you own 60 percent of a holding company which owns 50 percent of the French SAS, you indirectly hold 30 percent and you must be declared. Third, control by any other means also counts, by reference to Article L. 233-3 of the Commercial Code, under which “Toute personne, physique ou morale, est considérée, pour l’application des sections 2 et 4 du présent chapitre, comme en contrôlant une autre : 1° Lorsqu’elle détient directement ou indirectement une fraction du capital lui conférant la majorité des droits de vote dans les assemblées générales de cette société” (Article L. 233-3, Code de commerce, Légifrance). A shareholders’ agreement giving you the majority of votes, a veto right over the appointment of the président (president) of the SAS, or the factual power to determine decisions, makes you a beneficial owner even with a small shareholding.

Consider the structures foreign founders actually use. A single founder holding 100 percent of the SAS directly is the simplest case: that founder is declared. Two founders holding 50 percent each are both declared, because each exceeds 25 percent. A founder holding the SAS through a foreign holding company must trace the percentages through each level and declare every individual above 25 percent at the end of the chain, describing the indirect nature of the control. A foreign trust or fiducie sitting above the French company does not hide the individuals: the settlor, the trustee and the beneficiaries who exercise control must be analysed person by person. An investment fund with dozens of limited partners each below 25 percent and no control arrangement may end with no percentage-based owner — and that is exactly the situation the fallback rule covers.

When no natural person can be identified under the percentage and control tests, and the relevant professionals have no suspicion of money laundering or terrorist financing regarding the client, the beneficial owner is, by default, the person who legally represents the company. Article R. 561-1 lists them: for partnerships, limited liability companies and civil companies, the gérants (managers); for a public limited company with a board, the directeur général (chief executive); and, crucially for foreign founders, “d) Le président et, le cas échéant, le directeur général des sociétés par actions simplifiées” — the president and, where applicable, the chief executive of the SAS (Article R. 561-1, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). The same article adds that where those legal representatives are themselves legal entities, the persons to declare are the natural persons who legally represent them. In practice, a French SAS wholly owned by a foreign company with a widely dispersed capital ends up declaring its président — often the foreign founder personally — as beneficial owner by default. Declaring the president is not a trick to avoid the analysis; it is the solution the regulation itself imposes when the analysis yields nobody, and the declaration must then describe the capacity (president) rather than a percentage.

This is also why your French bank questions you so insistently. Banks are subject to customer due-diligence duties under Articles L. 561-5 to L. 561-10-2 of the Monetary and Financial Code, and they must identify the beneficial owners of their corporate clients before opening and during the operation of the account. The criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation (Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters) held on 19 June 2024 that “la mise à disposition d’un compte bancaire dans l’un de ses établissements et l’exécution d’ordres de virement des sommes y figurant vers des comptes à l’étranger, tels que constatés par l’arrêt, sont susceptibles de caractériser la participation de la banque à des opérations de blanchiment” (Cass. crim., 19 June 2024, No. 22-81.808, Légifrance). Banks therefore protect themselves by freezing account openings — and sometimes the operation of existing accounts — until the beneficial-owner file is clean and consistent with the RBE (registre des bénéficiaires effectifs, the national Beneficial Owners Register). A mismatch between what you told the bank and what the greffe holds is the classic trigger of a frozen file. Aligning the two from the start, with the same names, the same percentages and the same addresses, saves weeks of correspondence from abroad.

II. How to file, correct and defend your beneficial-owner declaration from abroad

A. Filing on the Guichet unique from abroad: documents, translations, thirty-day updates and rejections

The substantive duty is stated in Article L. 561-46 of the Monetary and Financial Code: the companies concerned “déclarent au registre du commerce et des sociétés, par l’intermédiaire de l’organisme mentionné au deuxième alinéa de l’article L. 123-33 du code de commerce, les informations relatives aux bénéficiaires effectifs. Ces informations portent sur les éléments d’identification et le domicile personnel de ces bénéficiaires ainsi que sur les modalités du contrôle que ces derniers exercent sur la société ou l’entité” (Article L. 561-46, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). The regulation details exactly what must be declared. Article R. 561-56 lists, for each beneficial owner: “Les nom, nom d’usage, pseudonyme, prénoms, date et lieu de naissance, nationalité, adresse personnelle de la ou des personnes physiques”, plus the nature, the terms and the extent of the control exercised over the company and the date on which the person became beneficial owner (Article R. 561-56, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). Note the personal address: it is the home address abroad, not the company’s registered office and not the lawyer’s office. A founder living in London declares the London home address; a founder in Singapore declares the Singapore address.

From abroad, prepare the file as a small cross-border dossier. For each beneficial owner: a valid passport or national identity card, proof of the personal address (utility bill or tax notice, with a translation if it is neither in French nor in English), and the documents proving the chain of control — the articles of the French company, the shareholder register or share transfer deeds, the articles and good-standing certificate of each foreign parent, the shareholders’ agreement if control comes from voting arrangements. Documents issued abroad generally need an apostille (the international certification under the Hague Convention of 5 October 1961) or consular legalisation depending on the issuing country, plus a translation by a traducteur assermenté (sworn translator registered with a French court of appeal) whenever the greffe requires it. Company names with special characters, dates in foreign formats and addresses transliterated from another alphabet are the three most frequent causes of rejection: write the owner’s name strictly as it appears on the passport, in the same order, with the same accents or without inventing any.

The filing itself is made online on the Guichet unique by the company’s representative or by an attorney-in-fact. A foreign founder who does not read French and has no French electronic signature has every interest in giving a written power of attorney to a French lawyer, who files in French, answers the greffe‘s follow-up questions and receives the notifications. The fee is modest, but the cost of a rejected file is measured in weeks: without a Kbis reflecting a compliant declaration, the bank keeps the account restricted, the VAT number can stall, and commercial partners performing their own checks hesitate. Keep a complete copy of everything filed — the declaration form, the identity documents as transmitted, the powers of attorney, the translations — because any later corrective filing must be consistent with the first one, and because a court can order the company to produce the file deposited with the greffe, as happened in a recent Nanterre case where the company had to hand over a copy of the declaration filed with the registry together with its supporting documents.

Rejections from the greffe follow recognisable patterns, and each has a concrete fix. Missing or expired identity document: transmit a valid passport copy directly, and if relations between partners are tense, the copy can be sent to the greffe directly rather than through the other partner. On 30 April 2025, the Nanterre judicial court ordered an associate who refused to hand over her identity document to “transmettre directement au greffe du tribunal de commerce de Bobigny une copie recto-verso en cours de validité de sa carte nationale d’identité ou de son passeport, dans un délai de huit jours à compter de la signification de la présente ordonnance, sous peine d’une astreinte de 100 € par jour de retard, limitée sur une période de soixante jours” (TJ Nanterre, interim order, 30 April 2025, file No. 24/02512, SCI YEUK). The judge recalled in that decision that “le représentant légal de la SCI YEUK a l’obligation légale de procéder au dépôt de la déclaration des bénéficiaires effectifs auprès du greffe du tribunal de commerce du lieu du siège social de la société” — the legal manager is under a legal duty to file the declaration with the greffe of the registered office, for every owner concerned. Unclear indirect chain: redraw the holding diagram level by level with exact percentages and attach the foreign parent’s company documents. Wrong capacity: a president declared with a percentage he does not hold, or an owner declared as manager when he is a shareholder — correct the nature of the control. Outdated information after a share transfer: file the corrective entry within the thirty-day period of Article R. 561-55 rather than waiting for the greffe‘s letter. In every case, answer the greffe in writing, in French, within the time it sets, and keep proof of sending: from abroad, deadlines run the same way as for a founder living in Paris.

B. What happens when the declaration is missing or wrong: formal notice, court injunction with penalty payments, removal from the register and the 200,000-euro criminal fine

The enforcement ladder has four rungs, and a foreign founder must understand all four, because distance does not pause any of them. The first rung is the greffe‘s formal notice (mise en demeure): when the information has not been declared or is inaccurate or incomplete, the registrar can order the company to regularise within three months, and failing regularisation, can remove (radier) the company from the Trade and Companies Register on his own motion. The removal is forwarded to the National Business Register, the public prosecutor is informed, and the struck-off company can then face criminal prosecution. A company removed in this way can apply for reinstatement once it proves that it has regularised; the registrar then has fifteen days to reinstate the registration or to notify a reasoned refusal, against which the company can seise the president of the court within fifteen days. These practical steps are described on the official business portal (Déclaration des bénéficiaires effectifs, service-public.fr). The lesson for a founder abroad: a letter from the greffe is never a formality to handle after the next trip to Paris. Instruct a representative immediately.

The second rung is the court injunction. Article L. 561-48 of the Monetary and Financial Code provides: “Le président du tribunal, d’office ou sur requête du procureur de la République ou de toute personne justifiant y avoir intérêt, peut enjoindre, au besoin sous astreinte, à toute société ou entité juridique mentionnée au premier alinéa de l’article L. 561-46 de procéder ou faire procéder soit aux déclarations des informations relatives au bénéficiaire effectif, soit à la rectification de ces informations lorsqu’elles sont inexactes ou incomplètes” (Article L. 561-48, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). The astreinte is a penalty payment per day of delay, set by the judge — one hundred euros per day is a frequently seen amount. If the company disobeys the injunction, the registrar notifies the public prosecutor, sends him a copy of the decision, and can proceed with removal from the register within three months of notification of the decision. The president can also appoint an agent (mandataire) to carry out the formalities, who can obtain any necessary information from the statutory auditor if the company has one.

This injunction is not theoretical. On 24 June 2024, at the request of the public prosecutor, the president of the Versailles commercial court ordered a SARL “de procéder à la déclaration de son bénéficiaire effectif au registre du commerce et des sociétés, dans le délai d’un mois à compter de la notification, sous astreinte de 100 euros par jour de retard passé ce délai” (CA Versailles, Commercial Chamber 3-2, 22 October 2024, file No. 24/05988). The company appealed, arguing that it had duly declared its beneficial owner back in 2018. The Court of Appeal of Versailles recalled the framework — “le président du tribunal, d’office ou sur requête du procureur de la République ou de toute personne justifiant y avoir intérêt, peut enjoindre, au besoin sous astreinte, ces sociétés de procéder ou faire procéder soit aux déclarations des informations relatives au bénéficiaire effectif” — and then held the appeal inadmissible: “l’ordonnance accueillant cette requête et enjoignant à une société de satisfaire à son obligation déclarative n’est pas susceptible de recours” (CA Versailles, 22 October 2024, No. 24/05988). An order granting the request and directing a company to comply with its declaration duty cannot be appealed; only a nullity appeal for excess of power remains, and a mere judicial error, even on a point of public policy, is not an excess of power. For a foreign shareholder, the message is blunt: do not count on an appeal to buy time. Comply within the month, through your French representative, and argue about the past afterwards if needed.

The general injunction of Article L. 123-5-1 of the Commercial Code completes the picture: “A la demande de tout intéressé ou du ministère public, le président du tribunal, statuant en référé, peut enjoindre sous astreinte au dirigeant de toute personne morale de procéder au dépôt des pièces et actes au registre du commerce et des sociétés auquel celle-ci est tenue par des dispositions législatives ou réglementaires” (Article L. 123-5-1, Code de commerce, Légifrance). The commercial chamber of the Court of Cassation confirmed, on 3 March 2021, that “C’est, en conséquence, à bon droit que la cour d’appel, retenant souverainement que les sociétés demanderesses justifiaient d’un intérêt à agir, les a dites recevables en leur action formée, en application des articles L. 232-23 du code de commerce et 873, alinéa 1, du code de procédure civile, contre la société Copirel, tendant à obtenir d’elle le respect de son obligation de dépôt” (Cass. com., 3 March 2021, No. 19-10.086, Légifrance). That decision concerned annual accounts, but the mechanism is general: third parties showing an interest to act can go to court to force a company to respect its register filings. Competitors, former partners and the prosecutor each have a route to the judge.

The third and fourth rungs are criminal. Article L. 574-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code punishes with a fine of 200,000 euros “le fait de ne pas fournir aux personnes mentionnées à l’ article L. 561-2 , dans le cadre des mesures de vigilance prévues à la section 3 du chapitre Ier du titre VI , ou de ne pas déclarer au registre du commerce et des sociétés ou, le cas échéant, dans un registre mentionné à l’article L. 561-46-1 les informations relatives aux bénéficiaires effectifs requises en application du premier alinéa de l’ article L. 561-46 ou de l’ article L. 561-46-1 , ou de déclarer des informations inexactes ou incomplètes” (Article L. 574-5, Code monétaire et financier, Légifrance). Convicted natural persons also face a management disqualification (interdiction de gérer) and a partial loss of civil and civic rights; legal entities face the penalties listed in Article 131-39 of the Criminal Code. The Nanterre judge underlined the personal exposure of owners themselves, noting that “l’absence de déclaration ou son caractère incomplet ou erroné peut donner lieu à des sanctions pénales prévues à l’article L574-5 du code monétaire et financier, lesquelles au demeurant n’ont pas vocation à s’appliquer uniquement à l’encontre du représentant légal de la société, mais aussi vis-à-vis de ses bénéficiaires effectifs” (TJ Nanterre, interim order, 30 April 2025, No. 24/02512). An owner abroad who refuses to provide an identity document is therefore not shielding himself: he is exposing both the manager and himself.

Defending yourself from abroad follows a clear order. First, regularise immediately through the Guichet unique, even while disputing the past: judges and registrars reward the company that files, and the Versailles case shows that claiming an old compliant filing does not stop the machinery — only a fresh, complete, provable filing does. Second, have your French lawyer contact the greffe in writing to confirm receipt and completeness, and keep the acknowledgements. Third, if an injunction is served, comply within the stated time and have the penalty payment (astreinte) settled or lifted by the judge rather than ignoring it from another country: penalty payments accrue daily and are enforced in France against the company’s assets and, where the law allows, against the manager. Fourth, if the company has been removed from the register, apply for reinstatement within the fifteen-day routes described above instead of continuing to trade as if nothing happened — invoices issued by a struck-off company deepen the damage. Fifth, where criminal exposure exists, prepare the documentary trail showing who did what and when: the declaration forms, the powers given, the translations ordered, the answers sent. Good faith shown by documents weighs heavily; silence from abroad weighs the other way.

Conclusion

The beneficial-owner declaration is the part of French company life that foreign founders discover last and that blocks them first. Identify every individual above 25 percent through each level of your foreign chain, test control by all other means under Article L. 233-3, and where the analysis yields nobody, declare the president of the SAS as the default owner. File through the Guichet unique at registration, update within thirty days of any change, and answer every letter from the greffe in French and on time through a representative in France. The courts grant injunctions within weeks, penalty payments run daily, removal from the register follows within months, and the criminal fine reaches 200,000 euros with a possible management ban. None of these procedures waits for your next flight to Paris. Handled early, the declaration is a one-hour formality; handled late, from abroad and under pressure, it becomes litigation. Put it first, keep the proofs, and your French company will keep its bank account, its Kbis and its credibility with every partner that checks the register.

Need a quick opinion on your case.

Telephone consultation: 80 EUR incl. VAT. Answer within 48 hours with a lawyer of the firm. Call +33 6 46 60 58 22.

Describe your situation on our contact page and receive a clear plan for your declaration, correction or defence.