Your money is in France, but it is not yours to spend. Weeks or months ago you wired the share capital from London, New York, Dubai or Singapore, a depositary issued its certificate, and then everything stalled: the bank asked for a third round of documents, the company register sent the file back, the operating account was refused, and the capital sits frozen while domiciliation bills and patience run out. This guide is written for exactly that moment, and for no other. It does not explain how to open the account: our guide on what to do when a French bank refuses the corporate account already covers the deposit and the designation procedure step by step, and our guide to choosing between an SAS, an SARL, a branch and a subsidiary in France covers the vehicle itself. The present guide answers the harder question that comes next: when registration will not happen soon, how do you get the frozen capital back from abroad, who is legally holding it, what the six-month clock changes for each contributor, and how do you restart cleanly or walk away without leaving a legal trap behind? Every French acronym is explained, every decisive statement is tied to the statute or judgment that says it, and the two court decisions cited below show the two outcomes founders usually face: the bank forced to execute, and the file rejected for opacity.

I. Why Does Your Capital Stay Frozen and Who Is Legally Holding It From Abroad?

Frozen capital is not a bank error and not a mystery. French law deliberately locks the contributions between the deposit and the registration, names the only persons allowed to hold them, and forbids every withdrawal before the Kbis (the official company identity certificate issued by the greffe, the clerk’s office of the commercial court) exists. A founder who understands who holds the money, under which duty, and until which event, stops negotiating with the wrong person and starts counting the only deadline that matters.

A. What Locks the Money: No Withdrawal Before the Kbis and the Eight-Day Rule?

The lock has two jaws. The first jaw is the amount the law demands upfront, which is smaller than most banks suggest. In a SARL (société à responsabilité limitée, the limited liability company with stricter statutory rules), article L. 223-7 of the Commercial Code provides that “Les parts sociales doivent être souscrites en totalité par les associés”, then that “Les parts représentant des apports en numéraire doivent être libérées d’au moins un cinquième de leur montant”, and that “La libération du surplus intervient en une ou plusieurs fois sur décision du gérant, dans un délai qui ne peut excéder cinq ans à compter de l’immatriculation de la société au registre du commerce et des sociétés”. A SARL with 10,000 euros of capital therefore has only 2,000 euros frozen, and chasing the release of money that was never required to be deposited is a common waste of months. For the SAS (société par actions simplifiée, the flexible joint-stock company most foreigners choose), article L. 227-1 of the Commercial Code opens with the principle that “Une société par actions simplifiée peut être instituée par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’à concurrence de leur apport”, and the cash follows the joint-stock deposit regime: article L. 225-5 of the Commercial Code provides that “Les fonds provenant des souscriptions en numéraire et la liste des souscripteurs avec l’indication des sommes versées par chacun d’eux font l’objet d’un dépôt dans les conditions déterminées par décret en Conseil d’Etat”, with the subscriber list showing who paid what.

The second jaw is the holder regime. The same article L. 225-5 warns that “A l’exception des dépositaires visés par le décret prévu à l’alinéa précédent, nul ne peut détenir plus de huit jours les sommes recueillies pour le compte d’une société en formation”. Only authorised depositaries, banks, the public trust body called the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, and notaries (notaires), may hold the funds beyond eight days. The consultant, the friend in Paris, or the foreign parent company that collected the money must forward it within eight days. A founder whose capital sits on the wrong person’s account does not have a withdrawal problem but a holder problem: the first letter should demand transfer to an authorised depositary, not release. And before registration, no one touches the deposit. Article L. 223-8 of the Commercial Code provides for the SARL that “Le retrait des fonds provenant de la libération des parts sociales ne peut être effectué par le mandataire de la société, avant l’immatriculation de celle-ci au registre du commerce et des sociétés”, while article L. 225-11 of the Commercial Code mirrors the rule for joint-stock companies, hence for the SAS: “Le retrait des fonds provenant des souscriptions en numéraire ne peut être effectué par le mandataire de la société avant l’immatriculation de celle-ci au registre du commerce et des sociétés”. Not even the appointed president or manager (gérant) can take the money early, however urgent the salaries look from abroad.

Acting as if the company already existed makes things worse. Article L. 210-6 of the Commercial Code provides that “Les sociétés commerciales jouissent de la personnalité morale à dater de leur immatriculation au registre du commerce et des sociétés”, and that “Les personnes qui ont agi au nom d’une société en formation avant qu’elle ait acquis la jouissance de la personnalité morale sont tenues solidairement et indéfiniment responsables des actes ainsi accomplis, à moins que la société, après avoir été régulièrement constituée et immatriculée, ne reprenne les engagements souscrits”. The founder who signed a lease, ordered stock or hired staff while the capital sat frozen remains personally and jointly liable unless the registered company later takes over those commitments. The safe method is the inventory rule that article R. 210-5 of the Commercial Code states for the SARL: “Lors de la constitution d’une société à responsabilité limitée, l’état des actes accomplis pour le compte de la société en formation, avec l’indication, pour chacun d’eux, de l’engagement qui en résulterait pour la société, est présenté aux associés avant la signature des statuts”. List every pre-registration act with its resulting obligation, annex the list to the articles of association (statuts), and registration carries the obligations to the company automatically.

B. What Does the Six-Month Clock Change for Each Contributor?

Six months after the first deposit, the law hands the key back to the contributors. If the company was never formed or never registered in that period, the money does not belong to the deadlock: it belongs to the people who paid it, and each of them can claim it back. The two company forms offer two different doors, and choosing the wrong one costs months.

In a SARL, every contributor holds an individual key. The same article L. 223-8 continues: “Si la société n’est pas constituée dans le délai de six mois à compter du premier dépôt de fonds, ou si elle n’est pas immatriculée au registre du commerce et des sociétés dans le même délai, les apporteurs peuvent individuellement demander en justice l’autorisation de retirer le montant de leurs apports”. Each contributor (apporteur) may individually ask a court for permission to withdraw the amount of the contribution. No majority vote is needed, no co-founder’s consent, no manager’s signature: one contributor acting alone can start the procedure for their own share. For a foreign founder, that individual character matters enormously when co-founders disagree, when one of them has disappeared, or when the French partner blocks every decision while living next door to the bank. The petition asks the court for authorisation (autorisation de retirer), and the depositary releases the funds on presentation of the court decision, exactly as it would release them on presentation of the Kbis in a successful formation.

In an SAS, the route passes through a court-appointed agent. Article L. 225-11 provides: “Si la société n’est pas constituée dans le délai de six mois à compter du premier dépôt de fonds ou si elle n’est pas immatriculée au registre du commerce et des sociétés dans le même délai, tout souscripteur peut demander en justice la nomination d’un mandataire chargé de retirer les fonds pour les restituer aux souscripteurs, sous déduction des frais de répartition”. Any single subscriber can ask the court to appoint an agent (mandataire) tasked with withdrawing the funds and returning them to the subscribers, less distribution costs (frais de répartition). The difference with the SARL is practical, not just textual: the SAS subscriber does not withdraw directly but obtains the appointment of an agent who collects the whole deposit and redistributes it, with the costs of that operation deducted. A sole founder of a one-person SAS (SASU) follows this same route, and the deducted costs on a small capital are usually modest compared with leaving the money frozen indefinitely.

Both forms share a faster third door that too many founders ignore: the joint representative. The SARL text, in article L. 223-8, adds: “Dans les mêmes cas, un mandataire, dès lors qu’il représente tous les apporteurs, peut demander directement au dépositaire le retrait des fonds”. The SAS text, in article L. 225-11, mirrors it: “Le retrait des fonds peut également être demandé directement au dépositaire, aux mêmes fins et sous les mêmes conditions, par un mandataire représentant l’ensemble des souscripteurs”. When all contributors agree, a single representative holding written powers from each of them claims the funds directly from the depositary, with no court at all. From abroad, this is the cheapest and fastest exit: collect dated powers of attorney (pouvoirs) from every subscriber, attach the deposit certificate and proof that six months have passed without registration, and send the pack to the depositary by tracked post with a French address for service (domicile élu). If the founders later change their minds and decide to form the company after all, both statutes impose the same restart rule: new deposit, new formalities. The SARL article, still in article L. 223-8, closes with “Si les apporteurs décident ultérieurement de constituer la société, il doit être procédé à nouveau au dépôt des fonds”, and the SAS article, still in article L. 225-11, with “Si le ou les fondateurs décident ultérieurement de constituer la société, il doit être procédé à nouveau au dépôt des fonds et à la déclaration prévus aux articles L. 225-5 et L. 225-6”. There is no shortcut that reuses the old certificate for a new attempt.

II. How Do You Actually Get the Money Back or Restart From Abroad?

Knowing the rights is half the work; operating them from another country is the other half. Courts, depositaries and banks all work on paper, deadlines and identities, and a file managed from abroad fails on exactly three points: the wrong route, the missing exhibit, or the silent representative. The method below removes all three.

A. Which Recovery Route Fits Your Situation: Court Petition, Joint Mandate or Negotiated Release?

Choose the route by counting the contributors who agree. If everyone agrees, use the joint mandate described above and skip the courts entirely. One representative, powers from all subscribers, deposit certificate, proof of the six-month lapse, tracked sending: depositaries, and particularly notaries and the Caisse des dépôts et consignations, process these direct claims routinely, because the statute orders them to. If even one contributor refuses or cannot be reached, the unanimous door closes and the judicial door opens: individual petition for the SARL, request for a court-appointed agent for the SAS. A founder who files alone in a SARL recovers their own contribution without waiting for the dispute with the others to end, which is precisely why the individual character of the SARL route deserves to be used instead of feared.

The court file, prepared from abroad, contains five exhibits and one address. First, the deposit certificate with the date of the first deposit, because the six-month period runs “à compter du premier dépôt de fonds” and the court counts from that stamped date, not from the wire order or the bank’s confirmation email. Second, proof that the company was not registered: a recent search on the company register showing no entry, the filing history from the single online window (Guichet unique) operated by the INPI (Institut national de la propriété industrielle), and any rejection decision from the greffe. Where the register itself is the problem, our guide on how to unblock a Kbis stuck at the Guichet unique helps decide whether recovery or repair is the better move. Third, the draft statuts with the subscriber list, proving who paid what. Fourth, identity documents of the claimant with apostille or legalisation and sworn translation (traduction assermentée) where needed, because a court cannot authorise a withdrawal to an unverified person. Fifth, the written power of attorney given to the French counsel or representative, with a French address for service so that no court letter waits uncollected while the founder is on another continent. Courts deduct nothing in the SARL individual route; in the SAS route, expect the agent’s distribution costs to be taken off the top, as the statute says “sous déduction des frais de répartition”. Claimants should therefore ask the court to set those costs explicitly rather than discovering them on the final statement.

Before filing, always attempt the negotiated release in writing, because judges ask what was tried first and depositaries often comply. The letter goes to the depositary, recalls the first-deposit date, attaches the certificate and the non-registration proof, sets a deadline of fifteen days, and states that a court petition follows absent release. Send it by tracked mail with acknowledgment, keep the receipt, and file it as the first exhibit of the petition. A bank that ignored three phone calls from abroad frequently answers one properly served letter, if only to avoid costs. If the depositary answers that the funds were transferred onward, demand the transfer trail in the same letter: under the eight-day rule quoted in the first part, only an authorised depositary may have received them, and the trail must show one.

B. Restart or Walk Away: How Do You Fix the File, Force the Account or Cut Losses?

Recovery is not always the right answer. Sometimes the project is sound and only the bank file failed; sometimes the registered office was the real blocker; sometimes the wise move is to stop paying domiciliation fees for a company that will never trade. The three paths below cover every situation, and the founder should pick one within thirty days of the six-month anniversary instead of drifting.

Path one is repair, and it starts with understanding why banks say no even after a designation. The right to an account belongs to companies: article L. 312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code states “A droit à l’ouverture d’un compte de dépôt dans l’établissement de crédit de son choix, sous réserve d’être dépourvu d’un tel compte en France : 1° Toute personne physique ou morale domiciliée en France”, and the designated bank must open the account within three working days of holding all needed documents: “Ils procèdent à l’ouverture du compte de dépôt dans les trois jours ouvrés à compter de la réception de l’ensemble des pièces qui lui sont nécessaires à cet effet”. Courts enforce this strictly when the refusal has no valid ground. On 21 December 2023 the Versailles Court of Appeal recalled that “L’article L 312-1 du code monétaire et financier énonce le principe du droit à l’ouverture d’un compte de dépôt pour toute personne physique ou morale domiciliée en France dans un établissement de crédit de son choix”, held that “L’établissement bancaire désigné par la Banque de France est tenu d’ouvrir un compte de dépôt au demandeur revendiquant son droit au compte et ce, dans les trois jours de la réception des pièces nécessaires à cet effet”, and ruled that the designated bank “ne pouvait valablement lui opposer la clôture d’un compte antérieur y compris au motif d’impayés non recouvrés” (CA Versailles, 21 December 2023, RG 22/05426). An old overdraft or a past incident does not defeat a designation, and the bank paid 2,000 euros for its refusal. A founder whose only problem is a stubborn bank should therefore re-run the designation with a complete file rather than recover the capital: the refusal certificate, the Kbis or draft statuts, director identity, and proof of the registered office, sent both to the Banque de France and pre-emptively to the likely designated bank. The official Banque de France page on the professional right to an account and the official Service-Public page on opening a professional bank account describe each step, and the basic services the designated bank must supply are listed by article D. 312-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code: “Les prestations de base mentionnées au II de l’article L. 312-1 comprennent : 1° L’ouverture, la tenue et la clôture du compte”, with statements, transfers, direct debits and a payment card following in the same list.

But designation never excuses opacity, and this is where most foreign files die. Article L. 561-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code imposes the know-your-customer duty: “1° Identifient leur client et, le cas échéant, le bénéficiaire effectif au sens de l’article L. 561-2-2 ; 2° Vérifient ces éléments d’identification sur présentation de tout document écrit à caractère probant”. When verification is impossible, article L. 561-8 orders the bank to stop: “elle n’exécute aucune opération, quelles qu’en soient les modalités, n’établit ni ne poursuit aucune relation d’affaires et peut transmettre la déclaration prévue à l’article L. 561-15 dans les conditions prévues à cet article”, and “Le I s’applique également lorsqu’un établissement de crédit a été désigné par la Banque de France sur le fondement de l’article L. 312-1 et que l’établissement n’a pas pu satisfaire à l’une des obligations prévues à l’article L. 561-5 ou à l’article L. 561-5-1”. On 6 July 2023 the Paris Court of Appeal applied exactly this articulation to a one-person SAS that had obtained a designation and sued the designated bank in emergency proceedings (CA Paris, 6 July 2023, RG 22/17393, Locial v BNP Paribas): “Il sera rappelé que le droit au compte, prévu par l’article L. 312-1 du code monétaire et financier, doit s’articuler avec les obligations de vigilance relatives à la lutte contre le blanchiment de capitaux et le financement du terrorisme, auxquelles sont assujettis les établissements bancaires, conformément aux articles L. 561-4-1 et suivants du code monétaire et financier”. The court added that “les obligations tenant à la lutte contre le blanchiment et au financement du terrorisme s’imposent y compris pour la procédure de droit au compte”, and, as the judgment states, “En particulier, il résulte de l’article L. 561-8 de ce code que lorsqu’un établissement bancaire n’est pas en mesure de satisfaire aux obligations prévues à l’article L. 561-5 ou à l’article L. 561-5-1, il n’exécute aucune opération, quelles qu’en soient les modalités, n’établit ni ne poursuit aucune relation d’affaires”. The company, which described an investment activity without approval, refused to name its clients and never answered the bank’s request for its business model and accounts, lost the case and paid 1,500 euros in costs. A founder choosing repair must therefore arrive with the transparency file: passports of every ultimate beneficial owner with apostille where required, the full ownership chain matching the beneficial-owners register (RBE, Registre des bénéficiaires effectifs), the signed statuts, the domiciliation contract for the registered office (siège social), a one-page business model in French with clients and volumes, and bank statements tracing the capital from the founder’s personal account. Silence in response to written questions is the one error the Paris judgment never forgives.

Path two is restart: recover first, then re-deposit. Because both statutes require a fresh deposit for any later formation, the clean sequence is petition or joint mandate, receipt of the funds, then a new deposit with a different depositary, often a notary, with the transparency file ready from day one. Never mix the two operations on the same certificate. Path three is exit: recover, terminate the domiciliation contract to stop the monthly fees, withdraw any pending Guichet unique filing, and keep the court decision with the bank statements for six years, since tax and social bodies may later ask where the French project went. Throughout all three paths, one prohibition holds: never route company money through personal accounts while waiting. That practice creates precisely the money-laundering appearance the banks feared, and it hands every future bank the documented reason to refuse that the Paris judgment validated. For founders without a French address, the registered office itself can be the hidden blocker, and our guide to domiciling a French company from abroad and proving the registered office settles that point before any new attempt.

Conclusion

Frozen capital in France is never lost by operation of law; it is either released by the Kbis or returned by the six-month routes, individually in a SARL, through a court-appointed agent in a SAS, or directly by a joint representative when everyone agrees. The founder living abroad who diaries the first-deposit date, identifies the authorised holder, and prepares the five-exhibit file with a French address for service holds every card: negotiate the release in writing, petition where negotiation fails, and deduct nothing except the statutory distribution costs of the SAS route. Where the project deserves to live, repair the transparency file instead and let the designation do its work, because the Versailles judgment punishes refusal without reason while the Paris judgment protects the bank that cannot verify. And where the project should die, kill it cleanly: recover, terminate the domiciliation, archive the proofs, and never bridge the gap with personal accounts. Money that crossed a border to build a company deserves a procedure, not a stalemate, and French law provides one for each outcome.