You live in London, New York, Dubai or Singapore. You have decided to create a French company, usually a SAS (société par actions simplifiée, the flexible joint-stock company foreign founders prefer) or sometimes a SARL (société à responsabilité limitée, the limited liability company with stricter statutory rules). Your lawyer drafts the articles of association, you wire the share capital from abroad, and then everything stops: no French bank wants to open an account for your company in formation, and without the bank’s capital deposit certificate (attestation de dépôt des fonds) the commercial court registry — the greffe, the office of the commercial court that registers companies — refuses to issue the Kbis, the official registration certificate that proves your company legally exists. This article explains why banks refuse, what they are legally entitled to ask you, and the two remedies that actually unlock the file: the deposit alternatives and the droit au compte (right to an account) procedure before the Banque de France (the French central bank), enforced by the courts when banks resist.

This situation is extremely common for non-resident founders. French banks apply strict anti-money-laundering controls to foreign shareholders, ultimate beneficial owners registered in the RBE (registre des bénéficiaires effectifs, the French beneficial ownership register), and funds arriving from abroad. From your side of the Channel or the Atlantic, a refusal without explanation feels arbitrary and blocking. It is not always unlawful. But it is never the end of the road: French law provides a precise path from refusal to designation to court order, and two recent appeal decisions show exactly where the line sits between a legitimate bank control and an unlawful refusal. For the general incorporation sequence — bank account, Kbis, VAT number and first hire — read first our step-by-step guide to setting up a company in France as a foreign founder; this article covers the crisis scenario where the bank says no.

I. Why French banks say no to a foreign-owned company in formation, and what the law requires of everyone

To understand a refusal, you must separate two different banking moments that foreign founders constantly confuse: the deposit of the share capital for a company that does not legally exist yet, and the opening of a running current account for a company already registered. Different rules apply, different documents are needed, and different remedies exist. Most files get stuck at the first stage, before the company even has a name in the national company register (registre du commerce et des sociétés, kept by the greffe and published in BODACC, the official bulletin of company registrations).

A. The capital deposit: your SAS cannot be born without a bank, a notary or the Caisse des dépôts

French company law requires that cash contributions be frozen with an authorised depositary before registration. In a SARL, the rule is set by statute: shares representing cash contributions must be paid up (libérées) for at least one fifth of their amount at incorporation, and the statute states the mechanism in these terms:

“Les parts sociales doivent être souscrites en totalité par les associés.” “Les parts représentant des apports en numéraire doivent être libérées d’au moins un cinquième de leur montant.” “Les fonds provenant de la libération des parts sociales sont déposés dans les conditions et délais déterminés par décret en Conseil d’Etat.” (article L223-7 of the Commercial Code)

The implementing decree fixes a short deadline and three possible depositaries, which matters enormously when banks refuse:

“Dans les huit jours de leur réception, les fonds provenant de la libération des parts sociales sont déposés pour le compte de la société en formation et par les personnes qui les ont reçus à la Caisse des dépôts et consignations, chez un notaire ou dans un établissement de crédit. Mention de la libération des parts et du dépôt des fonds est portée dans les statuts.” (article R223-3 of the Commercial Code)

For a SAS — the vehicle most foreign founders choose because it can be formed by one or more persons whose liability is limited to their contributions, as article L227-1 of the Commercial Code provides (“Une société par actions simplifiée peut être instituée par une ou plusieurs personnes qui ne supportent les pertes qu’à concurrence de leur apport”) — the deposit follows the rules of the SAS’s reference regime for subscriptions in cash:

“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, celui-ci fixe également les conditions dans lesquelles est ouvert le droit à communication de cette liste. 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.” (article L225-5 of the Commercial Code)

Read these three texts together and the practical picture becomes clear. First, the eight-day rule runs against whoever receives the funds: your French lawyer or agent cannot simply hold the wired capital indefinitely while you shop for a bank. Second, and decisively for blocked files, a bank is not the only depositary. The Caisse des dépôts et consignations (CDC, the state-owned public financial institution) and a French notary (notaire, the public officer who authenticates deeds) can receive the capital and issue the deposit certificate. When every bank’s compliance department turns down a company with a foreign shareholder, routing the deposit through a notary or the CDC is often the fastest way to obtain the certificate, file with the INPI single window (Institut national de la propriété industrielle, which operates the Guichet unique, the online one-stop filing portal for company registrations), and get the Kbis. Third, the deposit certificate must list the subscribers and the sums paid by each of them, so the depositary will itself ask for shareholder identification — prepare that file once, and reuse it everywhere.

Common foreign-founder mistakes at this stage are easy to list because banks report them identically every time. Wiring the capital from a personal account instead of the subscriber’s account creates a mismatch the bank must investigate. Wiring from a country or an intermediary the bank cannot document triggers enhanced checks. Subscribing through a foreign holding company without disclosing the ultimate beneficial owners forces the bank to stop and ask who really owns the funds. And presenting draft articles of association that do not state the release of the shares and the deposit of the funds — the mention required by article R223-3 — gives the bank a formal reason to wait. None of these mistakes is fatal, but each one adds weeks when you are managing the file from abroad, which is why the compliance file described in the next section should be assembled before the first bank appointment, not after the first refusal.

B. Anti-money-laundering controls: what the bank may — and must — ask a non-resident founder

Banks are not free to open accounts at their discretion without checks; they are subject to binding vigilance duties in the fight against money laundering and terrorist financing (lutte contre le blanchiment des capitaux et le financement du terrorisme, abbreviated LCB-FT). Before entering into a business relationship, they must identify the client and, where applicable, the beneficial owner, and verify those identities:

“Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires avec leur client ou de l’assister dans la préparation ou la réalisation d’une transaction, les personnes mentionnées à l’article L. 561-2 : 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.” (article L561-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code)

They must also collect information on the purpose and nature of the relationship and every other relevant element before the relationship starts, and keep that knowledge updated for as long as the relationship lasts:

“Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires, les personnes mentionnées à l’article L. 561-2 recueillent les informations relatives à l’objet et à la nature de cette relation et tout autre élément d’information pertinent. Elles actualisent ces informations pendant toute la durée de la relation d’affaires.” (article L561-5-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code)

The implementing regulation details the method: obliged entities collect and analyse the information needed to understand the purpose and nature of the relationship, and the extent of the information and analysis adapts to the money-laundering risk presented by the relationship:

“les personnes mentionnées à l’article L. 561-2 : 1° Avant d’entrer en relation d’affaires, recueillent et analysent les éléments d’information nécessaires à la connaissance de l’objet et de la nature de la relation d’affaires” and further “La nature et l’étendue des informations collectées ainsi que la fréquence de la mise à jour de ces informations et l’étendue des analyses menées sont adaptés au risque de blanchiment de capitaux et de financement du terrorisme présenté par la relation d’affaires.” (article R561-12 of the Monetary and Financial Code)

The sanction for the bank that cannot complete these checks is not a fine for opening the account — it is a prohibition on opening it at all:

“Lorsqu’une personne mentionnée à l’article L. 561-2 n’est pas en mesure de satisfaire aux obligations prévues à l’article L. 561-5 ou à l’article L. 561-5-1 , elle n’exécute aucune opération, quelles qu’en soient les modalités, n’établit ni ne poursuit aucune relation d’affaires” and, decisive for designated banks, “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.” (article L561-8 of the Monetary and Financial Code)

This last sentence is the one foreign founders must understand before crying foul: even a bank designated by the Banque de France under the right-to-an-account procedure may lawfully refuse if it cannot satisfy its identification and knowledge duties. The Paris Court of Appeal applied exactly this articulation on 6 July 2023 in a case brought by a single-shareholder SAS (SASU) against a major French bank designated by the Banque de France. The court recalled the principle in these terms:

“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.” (Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22/17393)

In that case the company described itself as providing investment advice or investment services without holding any licence or registration, could not explain the real substance of its activity or the identity of its clients, and left unanswered the bank’s request for its business model, client identities and accounting documents or at least a forecast balance sheet. The court held that the bank could validly rely on a serious dispute barring summary relief, confirmed the first judge’s order in full and ordered the company to pay the bank 1,500 euros under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

“la société intimée peut valablement faire état, à tout le moins, d’une contestation sérieuse s’opposant à l’ouverture du compte, au sens de l’article 872 du code de procédure civile, eu égard aux obligations d’un établissement bancaire résultant des articles L. 561-5 et L. 561-5-1 du code monétaire et financier.” “Confirme l’ordonnance entreprise.” “Condamne la SASU Locial à verser à la SA BNP Paribas la somme de 1.500 euros en application de l’article 700 du code de procédure civile à hauteur d’appel” (Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22/17393)

The lesson for a foreign founder is direct: an opaque file loses even with a Banque de France designation in hand. A transparent file — passports, proof of address, articles, RBE declaration showing the beneficial owners, source-of-funds evidence, business plan with expected billing volumes, and answers to the bank’s questions about suppliers, clients and the purpose of the French company — removes the bank’s only lawful ground for refusal.

Concretely, expect the bank to request the registered office address, the corporate purpose, the sector of activity, the financial situation of the legal entity and any other relevant element under a risk-based approach, following the ACPR guidelines (Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution, the French banking supervisor) of 16 December 2021 cited by the Paris court — for example the main suppliers or clients at account opening, and for newly created companies a forecast balance sheet and expected invoicing volumes. If your activity is regulated (financial services, payment services, insurance intermediation), bring the licence or registration on day one. If it is not regulated but looks financial (holding, investment, crypto-adjacent, trade intermediation), prepare a one-page note explaining the business model in plain language: what the French company will do, for whom, with what money, and why France. Founders who answer these questions before they are asked almost never reach the refusal stage; founders who treat them as intrusions do.

II. When refusal becomes unlawful: the droit au compte procedure and the judge who forces the door open

A bank has the right to refuse; it does not have the right to refuse silently, without reasons, or permanently without remedy. French law organises a precise escalation: written refusal, Banque de France designation within one business day, account opening with basic services within three business days, and court enforcement with daily penalties and damages when the designated bank still resists. Each step has its own proof requirements, and founders living abroad should prepare each proof as if the next step were certain — because when you are refused by two banks, it usually is.

A. Getting designated: the refusal letter, the Banque de France file and the basic-services account

The right to an account belongs to any individual or legal entity domiciled in France that holds no such account, as the statute opens:

“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” (article L312-1 of the Monetary and Financial Code).

When the chosen bank refuses, the applicant may refer the matter to the Banque de France, which designates a bank near the applicant’s domicile or another place of their choice, taking market shares into account, within one business day of receiving the required documents, as the same article L312-1 provides (“celle-ci peut saisir la Banque de France afin qu’elle lui désigne un établissement de crédit situé à proximité de son domicile ou d’un autre lieu de son choix, en prenant en considération les parts de marché de chaque établissement concerné, dans un délai d’un jour ouvré à compter de la réception des pièces requises définies par arrêté”). The bank that refused must systematically, free of charge and without delay provide a written refusal certificate (attestation de refus) and inform the applicant of the right to apply to the Banque de France. In practice, the Banque de France procedure requires proof of the refusal: either the certificate or, if the bank stayed silent, a copy of the acknowledgment of receipt of the registered letter requesting the account, or proof of hand delivery at the counter, dating back more than 15 days — after 15 days without an answer, silence counts as refusal, according to the Banque de France right-to-an-account procedure page — plus valid official identification and proof of address less than three months old. The professional-account route is described step by step on the service-public professional right-to-an-account page, which confirms that a bank may refuse a professional account but must issue the refusal certificate, and that the Banque de France then designates a bank within 24 hours of receiving the complete file, the designation remaining valid for six months.

The designated bank does not offer a full premium package; it must offer basic banking services whose content is fixed by decree, and it must open the deposit account within three business days of receiving all the documents it needs, under a written account agreement, as article L312-1 states (“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”). The basic services are listed by regulation and cover the essentials a new company needs to operate:

“Les prestations de base mentionnées au II de l’article L. 312-1 comprennent : 1° L’ouverture, la tenue et la clôture du compte ; 2° Un changement d’adresse par an ; 3° La délivrance à la demande de relevés d’identité bancaire ; 4° La domiciliation de virements bancaires ; 5° La fourniture mensuelle d’un relevé des opérations effectuées sur le compte ; 6° L’encaissement de chèques et de virements bancaires ; 7° Les paiements par prélèvements SEPA, titre interbancaire de paiement SEPA ou par virement bancaire SEPA” with remote balance consultation, cash deposits and withdrawals, and a payment card for online operations and EU cash withdrawals (“8° Des moyens de consultation à distance du solde du compte ; 9° Les dépôts et les retraits d’espèces au guichet ou aux distributeurs automatiques de l’organisme teneur de compte ; 10° Une carte de paiement permettant notamment le paiement d’opérations sur internet et le retrait d’espèces dans l’Union européenne.”). (article D312-5 of the Monetary and Financial Code)

Two warnings matter specifically for foreign founders. First, a company in formation has no French domicile yet and no Kbis, so some banks argue the procedure only fits existing persons — the service-public professional page nevertheless organises the route for professional accounts, and in practice founders file once the draft articles, the registered-office lease or domiciliation contract, and the subscriber identification exist; if the designation route stalls for a company not yet registered, the notary or CDC deposit described in section I.A keeps the incorporation on track while the account battle continues in parallel. Second, the designated bank will still run its LCB-FT checks and may still lawfully refuse if you cannot satisfy them, exactly as article L561-8 allows — so the compliance file from section I.B must accompany the Banque de France application, not follow it. Send everything twice: once to the bank, once to the Banque de France file.

B. Going to court: what the Paris and Versailles judges actually ordered, and the file that wins

When a designated bank maintains its refusal without a legitimate anti-money-laundering ground, the courts order the opening under penalty and award damages. The Versailles Court of Appeal demonstrated this on 21 December 2023, confirming a judgment that had ordered a designated bank to open the account under a 50-euro-per-day penalty (astreinte) after a 15-day grace period and awarded 2,000 euros for moral harm. The court stated the governing principle bluntly:

“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.” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22/05426)

In that case the bank invoked an earlier closed account with unpaid debts and a discrepancy between two birth dates on official documents. The court rejected both grounds: a designated bank could not rely on the earlier closed account, and once the applicant had explained the clerical error on his OFPRA birth certificate with the corrected certificate and both residence permits, the bank, still bound by its designation and holding every necessary document, could no longer lawfully refuse:

“Le Crédit agricole désigné par la banque de France en application des dispositions susvisées consacrant le droit au compte ne pouvait valablement lui opposer la clôture d’un compte antérieur y compris au motif d’impayés non recouvrés.” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22/05426)

The court then found that the bank, designated on 16 November 2017, had to this day and without legitimate reason failed to open the account, confirmed the first judgment in all its provisions, and upheld the 2,000-euro assessment of the moral harm caused by maintaining a refusal without legitimate reason:

“La cour constate que le Crédit agricole bien que désigné par la Banque de France le 16 novembre 2017 en application des dispositions de l’article L 312-1 du code monétaire et financier n’a pas à ce jour et sans motif légitime procédé à l’ouverture d’un compte au nom de M [E].” “CONFIRME le jugement déféré en toutes ses dispositions” (Versailles Court of Appeal, 16th chamber, 21 December 2023, RG 22/05426)

Note the boundary the court drew on damages: the applicant’s claim for 12,000 euros failed for the part of the harm consisting of being deprived of online payment services, because basic accounts available to anyone — the court cited the Nickel-type account giving an IBAN, transfers and a card — already provide those services, so that part of the harm could not flow from the bank’s refusal. Claim the harm the refusal truly caused (blocked incorporation, frozen operations, months of delay), not services you could have obtained elsewhere.

Put the two appeal decisions side by side and the litigation strategy writes itself. The Paris ruling of 6 July 2023 (RG 22/17393) shows the bank winning where the company stayed opaque: unlicensed investment activity, undisclosed clients, unanswered requests for the business model and accounts — a serious dispute (contestation sérieuse) barring summary relief and a 1,500-euro costs order against the company. The Versailles ruling of 21 December 2023 (RG 22/05426) shows the applicant winning where every document had been supplied and every anomaly explained: opening ordered under astreinte plus 2,000 euros. The difference between the two outcomes is not the quality of the lawyers; it is the quality of the file. Your court file from abroad should therefore contain, in order: the two written refusals (or the registered letters with acknowledgments of receipt proving 15 days of silence), the Banque de France designation, the complete identification pack (passports of all shareholders and directors, proof of address, articles of association, registered-office title, RBE beneficial-owner declaration details), the source-of-funds trail for the wired capital, the written answers to every compliance question the bank asked, and a dated chronology showing when each document was sent. File for summary proceedings (référé) before the president of the commercial court for a company, seeking opening under astreinte and a provision for the commercial harm — the Locial case itself was brought “au visa des articles L. 312-1, D. 312-5 et D. 312-5-1 du code monétaire et financier et de l’article 1240 du code civil” with exactly those heads of claim (“ordonner à la société BNP Paribas d’ouvrir son compte dans ses livres”, “la somme de 30.000 euros par provision au titre du préjudice commercial”), which tells you the procedural vehicle even though that company’s claim failed on the merits of opacity:

“au visa des articles L. 312-1, D. 312-5 et D. 312-5-1 du code monétaire et financier et de l’article 1240 du code civil” with the heads of claim “ordonner à la société BNP Paribas d’ouvrir son compte dans ses livres” and “la somme de 30.000 euros par provision au titre du préjudice commercial” (Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22/17393)

Practical sequencing for a founder managing this from abroad: first, apply to two banks in parallel with the full compliance file and send each application by a traceable route so silence can be proved. Second, at the first written refusal, commission the notary or CDC capital deposit in parallel so the Kbis is not held hostage to the account dispute. Third, file the Banque de France designation request the day the refusal certificate arrives (or on day 16 after a silent application), attaching the compliance file again. Fourth, if the designated bank does not open within three business days of receiving the complete documents, have counsel send a formal demand (mise en demeure) referencing the designation, then file in référé. Throughout, answer every bank question in writing within days — the Paris decision punishes an unanswered request for documents, while the Versailles decision rewards documented explanations:

“par courriel officiel du 9 novembre 2022 (pièce 2), le conseil de l’intimée a demandé au conseil de l’appelante son business model, l’identité de ses clients et les documents comptables et financiers, à défaut un bilan prévisionnel, ce document étant resté sans réponse de la part de la société Locial.” (Paris Court of Appeal, Pôle 1 Chambre 2, 6 July 2023, RG 22/17393)

And never confuse the capital deposit certificate with the current account: once the Kbis is issued, banks treat an existing, registered, tax-identified company very differently from a company in formation, so the incorporation itself often unblocks the file.

Two companion guides complete this picture for founders managing a French company from abroad: what happens when a French bank refuses or freezes your operating company account, including the notice rules for closures, and the full mechanics of depositing and releasing your French company share capital from abroad. The present guide focuses on the formation-stage deadlock and its court enforcement, decided in the two 2023 rulings analysed above.

Conclusion

A French bank may say no to your company in formation, but it must say so in writing, and its refusal must rest on verifiable anti-money-laundering grounds — identification of the client and beneficial owner, knowledge of the purpose and nature of the relationship, documentation proportionate to the risk — not on your foreign address alone. Your answers are layered: clean up the compliance file before the first application, route the share capital through a notary or the Caisse des dépôts if banks will not take the deposit, trigger the Banque de France designation on refusal, and ask the commercial court in summary proceedings to order the opening under a daily penalty when a designated bank resists without a legitimate reason. The two 2023 appeal rulings frame the entire battlefield: opacity loses even with a designation, transparency wins even against a large bank. Prepare the file as if you will have to show it to a judge, and in most cases you will never need to.