{"id":2104973,"date":"2026-08-22T21:07:03","date_gmt":"2026-08-22T19:07:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/2026\/08\/22\/british-shareholders-french-sci-beneficial-owner-checks-bank-account\/"},"modified":"2026-08-22T21:07:03","modified_gmt":"2026-08-22T19:07:03","slug":"british-shareholders-french-sci-beneficial-owner-checks-bank-account","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.fr\/en\/2026\/08\/22\/british-shareholders-french-sci-beneficial-owner-checks-bank-account\/","title":{"rendered":"British Shareholders in a French SCI After Brexit: How to Pass Beneficial-Owner Checks and Unblock a Bank Account"},"content":{"rendered":"

A French soci\u00e9t\u00e9 civile immobili\u00e8re<\/em> (SCI), meaning a French civil property company, can be perfectly legitimate while its bank account is suspended, restricted or refused after a compliance review. British shareholders often experience this after Brexit when the bank asks for an updated ownership chart, a French or UK tax-residence document, proof of the source of funds, or evidence that the company\u2019s b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire effectif<\/em> (beneficial owner) information is current. A request for documents is not, by itself, a finding of wrongdoing. It is a signal that the bank has not yet completed the checks required before it can continue the relationship.<\/p>\n

The practical question is therefore not simply \u201cwhy does the bank dislike British shareholders?\u201d It is: which type of banking decision has been made, which document is missing, and which remedy is available? The answer differs if the bank is refusing a new account, freezing payments, terminating an ordinary account, or terminating an account opened through France\u2019s statutory droit au compte<\/em> (right-to-account procedure). This article maps those distinctions, explains the evidence a British family should assemble, and sets out the escalation route. It also separates the SCI\u2019s French legal and tax obligations from each shareholder\u2019s personal UK and French reporting obligations.<\/p>\n

For the wider family-planning context, see the article on whether British families should use a French SCI after Brexit<\/a>. The present article addresses a narrower and separate problem: what to do when the SCI\u2019s banking relationship is challenged.<\/p>\n

I. Why can a French SCI account be blocked after Brexit?<\/h2>\n

A. What the bank is legally checking when it asks for a new file<\/h3>\n

The bank is dealing with the SCI as a legal person, not merely with the British family behind it. The first file should therefore identify the company and the authority of the person who represents it. The usual core documents are the up-to-date extrait Kbis<\/em> (company registration extract), the signed articles of association, the appointment of the g\u00e9rant<\/em> (manager), the registered-office evidence, the latest ownership table and a written mandate if somebody other than the legal manager communicates with the bank. A UK shareholder\u2019s passport is relevant, but it does not replace the SCI\u2019s corporate documents.<\/p>\n

The second layer is the identification of the beneficial owner. Article L. 561-2-2 of the French Code mon\u00e9taire et financier<\/em> defines that person as the natural person who ultimately controls the customer or for whom the operation is carried out. The official wording begins: \u201cle b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire effectif est la ou les personnes physiques : 1\u00b0 Soit qui contr\u00f4lent en dernier lieu, directement ou indirectement, le client\u201d. The rule is about real control, not nationality. A British shareholder holding more than 25 per cent may be a beneficial owner, but a person with a smaller holding may also qualify if the articles, a voting arrangement, a chain of companies or another legal mechanism gives that person effective control.<\/p>\n

The bank then compares several records that are often inconsistent after a family reorganisation: the articles, the share ledger, a gift or succession deed, the French registre national des entreprises<\/em> (RNE), the beneficial-owner filing made through the Guichet unique<\/em> (the one-stop business formalities portal), and the bank\u2019s own file. The INPI explanation of beneficial owners<\/a> states that the declaration must identify the people concerned and the type of control exercised. A bank may therefore ask the family to correct an RNE entry before it will release a payment, especially where a British shareholder has moved, changed name, transferred shares or become a usufructuary.<\/p>\n

The legal reason for this scrutiny is found in Article L. 561-5 of the same Code. It requires the bank, before entering a business relationship, to identify the customer and, where relevant, the beneficial owner, and to verify the identity through reliable written evidence. The operative wording is: \u201cIdentifient leur client et, le cas \u00e9ch\u00e9ant, le b\u00e9n\u00e9ficiaire effectif\u201d. Article L. 561-8 then sets the consequence of an unresolved file: when the obliged institution cannot satisfy the identification obligations, \u201celle n’ex\u00e9cute aucune op\u00e9ration, quelles qu’en soient les modalit\u00e9s, n’\u00e9tablit ni ne poursuit aucune relation d’affaires\u201d. In plain English, a bank may be legally unable to process a transfer while it still cannot establish who owns or controls the SCI.<\/p>\n

That does not mean that every request is proportionate or that a bank can keep an account in limbo without explanation forever. The compliance team must connect the request to the risk it is assessing. Ask whether the issue is identity, beneficial ownership, tax residence, source of funds, expected activity, sanctions screening or an outdated company record. A vague request for \u201cBrexit documents\u201d is not a useful diagnosis. A request for a current passport, proof of address and a signed ownership chart is more precise and can be answered directly.<\/p>\n

The bank may also retain records for a long period. Article L. 561-12 provides that the relevant institutions keep relationship and vigilance documents for five years after the account is closed or the relationship ends. Its text states that they \u201cconservent pendant cinq ans \u00e0 compter de la cl\u00f4ture de leurs comptes ou de la cessation de leurs relations avec eux\u201d the documents and information relating to the relationship and the vigilance measures. This explains why the bank may ask for a coherent historical explanation of a transfer, a change of manager or an old UK sale, rather than only a photograph of a current passport.<\/p>\n

For a family SCI, the bank\u2019s file should be built in layers:<\/p>\n